Skip to main content

Full text of "The World Order"

See other formats








H. Res, 217 


PART 1, Pages 1-943 

MAY 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, JUNE 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, AND 

JULY 2 AND 9, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Special Committee To Investigate Tax Exempt 
Foundations and Comparable Organizations 

49720 WASHINGTON : 1954 


CARROLL B. REECB, Tennessee, Chairman 


Bend A. Woemskb, General Counsel 

Kathryn Casey, Legal Analyst 

Norman Dodd, Research Director 

Arnold Koch, Associate Counsel 

John Marshall, Jr., Chief Clerk 

Thomas McNiecb, Assistant Research Director 




Andrews, T. Coleman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue 418-463 

Bureau of Internal Revenue: T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner; Nor- 
man A. Sugarman, Assistant Commissioner— 418-463 

Briggs, Dr. Thomas Henry, Meredith, N. H 94 

Capital Values and Growth of Charitable Foundations (Staff Report 2)__ 9-10 
Casey, Kathryn, legal analyst : 

Memorandum on National Education Association: ,. 64 

Statement on duplication of Dodd report . 81 

Staff Report No. 5 — Summary of Activities of The Carnegie Corpora- 
tion of New York, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
Teaching, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The 
Rockefeller Foundation, and The Rockefeller General Education 

Board _ 668-709,869-943 

Testimony _ 710-725 

Dodd, Norman (Staff Report No. 1), director of research 5 

Dodd, Norman (resumed) r 23,43,75,89 

Earl, Kenneth, attorney, Lewis, Strong & Earl, Esqs., Moses Lake, Wash_ 729-793 
Economics and the Public Interest (Staff Report No.. 4) : report of T. M. 

McNiece, a^i&tant director of research____J. '. 627-665 

Herring, Pendleton, president, Social Science Research Council 794-865 

Hobbs, Dr. A. H., assistant professor of sociology, University of Penn- 
sylvania _ 114-188 

McNiece, Thomas M., assistant research director : 

Staff Report No. 2 — Capital Values and Growth of Charitable Foun- 
dations ; 9-iQ 

Staff Report No. 3 — Relations Between Foundations and Education. 467-491 

Between Foundations and Government 610-619 

Staff Report No. 4— Economics and the Public Interest- 627-665 

Testimony 492-520 

Testimony (resumed) 601-626 

National Education Association, memorandum on 64 

Pfeiffer, Timothy, attorney for Social Science Research Council 794 

Reece, Hon. B. Carroll, chairman : 

Opening statement ; 2 

Speech, July 23, 1953 25 

Resolution, H. R. 217 1 

Resolution, eliminating further public hearings : : 867 

Relations Between Foundations and Education 467-491 

Relations Between Foundations and Governments ( Staff Report No. 3) __ 610-619 

Rippy, Prof. J. Fred, letter to Congressman Cox ■ 62 

Rowe, Prof. David Nelson, director of studies on human resources, Yale 

University 523-599 

Rules of Procedure 3 

Sargent, Aaron M., attorney, San Francisco, Calif 189-409 

Social Science Research Council, statement of . 794 

Staff Report No. 1, by Norman Dodd, director of research 5-94 

Staff Report No. 2 — Capital Values and Growth of Charitable Foun- 
dations 9-16 

Staff Report No. 3 : 

Relations Between Foundations and Education 467-491 

Relations Between Foundations and Government . 610-619 

Staff Report No. 4 — Economics and the Public Interest 627-665 

Staff Report No. 5— Summary of Activities of The Carnegie Corporation 
of New York, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- 
ing, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rockefeller 
Foundation, and The Rockefeller General Education Board— 668-709, 869-943 




Sugarman, Norman A., Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue 422-463 

Summary of Activities of The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The 
Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, The Carnegie En- 
dowment for International Peace, The Rockefeller Foundation, and The 

Rockefeller General Education Board 668-709, 869-943 

Webbink, Paul, vice president, Social Science Research Council 794 


MONDAY, MAY 10, 1954 

House op Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, J). G. 

The special committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to notice, in room 
1301 of the House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman of 
the special committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece, Wolcott, Goodwin, Hays, and 

Also present : Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel ; Norman Dodd, research director ; Katharyn Casey, 
legal analyst; and John Marshall, Jr., chief clerk of the special 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

This is the first session of this special committee. This committee 
was created by House Resolution 217 of the 83d Congress, 1st session^ 
which resolution describes its purposes as follows : 

The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete in- 
vestigation and study of educational an philanthropic foundations and other 
comparable organizations which are exempt from Federal income taxation to 
determine if any foundations and organizations are using their resources for 
purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and espe- 
cially to determine which such foundations and organizations are using their 
resources for un-American and subversive activities; for political purposes; 
propaganda* or attempts to influence legislation. 

If agreeable I would like to ask the reporter to insert the entire 
resolution in the record for information. 
(The resolution is as follows:) 

,[H. Res. 217, 83d Cong., let seaa.] 

Resolved, That there is hereby created a special committee to be composed of 
five members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker, 
one of whom he shall designate as chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the 
membership of the committee shall be filled in the same manner in which the 
original appointment was made. 

The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete 
investigation and study of educational and philanthropic foundations and other 
comparable organizations which are exempt from Federal ineome taxation to 
determine if any foundations and organizations are using their resources for 
purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and especially 
to determine which such foundations and organizations are using their resources 
for un-American and subversive activities; for political purposes; propaganda, 
or attempts to influence legislation! 

The committee shall report to the House(or to the -Clerk, of,, the House if the 
House is not in session) on or before January 3, 1955, the results of its investiga- 
tion and study, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable; ; 


For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the committee, or any duly 
authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the present 
Congress at such times and places and within the United States, its Territories, 
and possessions, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, 
to hold hearings, administer oaths, and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the 
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems neces- 
sary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the com- 
mittee or any member of the committee designated by him, and may be served by 
any person designated by such chairman or member. 

Upon the passage of this resolution, the Sergeant at Arms of the House is 
authorized and directed to ascertain the location of all books, papers, files, 
correspondence, and documents assembled by the former select committee under 
H. Res. 561, Eighty-second Congress, and take same into his custody,' depositing 
such records with the Clerk under rule XXXVI. The Clerk of the House is 
- hereby authorized to loan such records and flies to the special committee estab- 
lished by this resolution for the official use of the special committee during the 
Eighty-third Congress or until January 3, 1955, when they will be returned in 
accordance with said rule. 

The Chairman. The study assigned to the committee is one of great 
importance. A similar committee had been appointed by the House 
during the previous Congress. I shall refer to it as the Cox commit- 
tee. The time allotted to the Cox committee was short and inadequate. 
The present committee was created largely because* of "this, in order 
that the work of studying the foundations might be continued to a 
greater degree of thoroughness. 

Because of the limitations of time and finances, we have decided 
at this stage to confine ourselves to only some sections of the general 
subject of foundations. 

The term encompasses many types of institutions, such as universi- 
ties, hospitals, churches, and so forth, except where peculiar circum- 
stances dictate we shall limit our study to foundations as the term 
connotes ordinarily in the public mind. A definition is difficult, but 
to name examples of such institutions, such as the Rockefeller Founda- 
tion, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation will illustrate 
what we shall ordinarily mean when we use the term "foundations" 
in these proceedings. 

Moreover, and again with an occasional exception, we shall chiefly 
confine our attention to the work of foundations in what are called 
the social sciences. Little criticism has come to us concerning research 
or other, foundation activities in the physical or exact sciences, such 
as medicine and physics. We shall of course consider breaches of law, 
and abuses of what may be desirable conduct wherever ^we find them. 
We deem our function to be essentially and primarily factfinding. 

The committee is unanimous in believing that foundations are de- 
sirable institutions, that they have accomplished a great amount of 
benefit for the people of our country, and that nothing should be done 
to decrease their effectiveness. There have* been indicationg^Jiowever, 
that foundations have not at all times acted in the best interests of the 
people. Thiirmay sometimes happen by intention, but far more often 
probably by negligence. Sometimes, also, there seem to be certain 
weaknesses in the very structure or conventional operation of founda- 
tions as an institution which readily permit them to fall into some- 
times accidental and unintended, but serious error. As some of these 
errors can be very serious and often fatal, it is our objective to try to 
seek out causes and reasons to the end, first, of disclosing pertinent ma- 
terial of which the foundations themselves may not always be aware; 


and, two, of enabling them in consequence to take steps to avoid such 
errors in the future; and, three, permitting Congress to consider 
whether any remedial steps may be necessary or desirable. 

There are, I believe, something like 7,000 organizations of the kind 
we refer to as foundations, and Ibelieve they control some %7y 2 billion 
of capital, of which a handful of these foundations control about one- 
third. The size of the financial power which they wield measures 
the gravity of the problem involved. Moreover, stimulated by our 
high tax rates, more and more foundations are being created, and it 
is probable that the aggregate foundation control in the country will 
increase enormously in the ensuing years. 

If we shall not spend much time in exposition of what great amount 
of good the foundations have admittedly done, it is because we deem it 
our principal duty fairly to seek out error. It is only through this 
process that good can come out of our work. It will be for Congress, 
the people, and the foundations themselves to judge the seriousness of 
such error, and to judge also what corrective means, if any, should be 
taken. Our intention has been, and I wish to make this doubly 
clear, to conduct an investigation which may have constructive results, 
and which may make foundations even more useful institutions than 
they have been. 

, In that statement, I have undertaken to set out the general purposes 
of the work of the committee. 

The counsel has submitted some suggested rules of procedure, which 
have been sent to the members of the committee. Do the members of 
the committee feel that those rules are acceptable, or are there othera 
you wish to prefer ? If not, we can say they are adopted. What is 
your position? 

Mr. Hays. I do not see anything objectionable, but there might be 
something we might want to add to them. We can consider them 
adopted with the privilege of amending. 

The Chairman. Without objection, then, the rules of procedure 
suggested by the committee will be adopted. 

Mr. Goodwin - . The only suggestion I have, Mr. Chairman, is No. 1. 
with reference to a quorum, cf one member of each political party." 1 
assumed that there would be no politics in this investigation, and I 
would be satisfied if that said, "one member of both the majority 
and minority," just to leave the word 'Apolitical" out. 

The Chairman. I think that that suggestion is a good one. 

Mr. Hays. I have no objection. 

The Chairman. With that modification, the rules, without objection^ 
will stand as adopted, and if there are copies of these available for the 
press, of course the press will be entitled to have them, and they will 
be embodied in the proceedings. 

(The rules of procedure are as follows :) 

Rules of Prociidtfbe 

The following rules have been adopted by the committee : 
1. Executive and public hearings 

A. General provisions: No hearing, either executive or public, shall be held 
unless all members of the committee have been notified thereof and either a 
majority of the members, or one member of both majority and minority member- 
ship is present. 


B. Executive hearings: 

i. If a majority of the committee believes that the interrogation of a wit- 
ness in a public hearing might unjustly injure his reputation or the reputa- 
tion of other individuals, the committee shall interrogate such witness in a 
closed or executive session. 

ii. Attendance at executive sessions shall be limited to members of the 
committee, its staff, and other persons whose presence is requested, or 
consented to, by the committee. 

iii. All testimony taken in executive sessions shall be kept secret and 
shall not be released or used in public sessions without the approval of a 
majority of the committee. 

C. Public hearings : All other hearings shall be public. 

2. Subpenainff of witnesses 

A. Issuance of subpenas : Subpenas shall be signed and issued by the chair- 
man of the committee, or any member of the committee designated by said 

B. Service of subpenas: Every witness shall be subpenaed in a reasonably 
sufficient time in advance of any hearing in order to give the witness an oppor- 
tunity to prepare for the hearing and employ counsel, should he so desire. 

3. Testimony under oath 

All witnesses at public or executive hearings who testify as to matters of fact 
shall give all testimony under oath or affirmation. Only the chairman or a 
member of the committee shall be empowered to administer said oath or 

4. Advice of counsel 

A. At every hearing, public or executive, every witness shall be accorded the 
privilege of having counsel of his own choosing. 

B. The participation of counsel during the course of any hearing and while 
the witness is testifying shall be limited to advising said witness as to his legal 
rights. Counsel shall not be permitted to engage in oral argument with the 
committee, but shall confine his activity to the area of legal advice to his client. 

5. Statement of witness 

A. Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written statement for the 
record of the proceedings in executive or public sessions shall file a copy of 
such statement with the counsel of the committee within a reasonable period 
of time in advance of the hearing at which the statement is to be presented. 

B. All such statements so received which are relevant and germane to the 
subject of the investigation and of reasonable brevity may, upon approval, at 
the conclusion of the testimony of the witness, by a majority vote of the com- 
mittee members present, be inserted in the official transcript of the proceedings. 
6'. Witness fees and travel allowance 

Each witness who has been subpenaed, upon the completion of his testimony 
before the committee, may report to the office of the clerk of the committee, 
room 103, 131 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, D. 0., and there sign 
appropriate vouchers for travel allowances and attendance fees upon the 

1. Transcript of testimony 

A. A complete and accurate record shall be kept of all testimony and pro- 
ceedings at hearings, both in public and in executive session. 

B. Stenographic transcripts of the testimony, when completed by the public 
reporter, will be available for purchase by all those who may be interested in 
procuring same. 

The Chairman. The general counsel of the committee is Mr. Eene 
Wormser, and associate counsel is Mr. Arnold Koch. The director 
of research is Mr. Norman Dodd. 

Mr. Wormser, what do you suggest this morning? 
r Mr. Woemser. Mr. Chairman, by informal agreement with the com- 
mittee, we hare suggested that Mr. Dodd take the stand first, in order 
to give the committee a sort of full report of the direction which 
our research has taken, and the reasoning behind the various steps 


in research, and also to give "those interested, the public and the 
foundations themselves, some idea of what our main lines of inquiry 
in this investigation will be. 

There are many what you might call collateral lines of investiga- 
tion, and comparatively minor matters into which we may probably 
go, depending upon time. But I have asked Mr. Dodd to take the 
stand to give you what I think can safely be called our main lines 
of inquiry r 

With your permission I would like to put Mr. Dodd on the stand. 

The Chairman. Mr. Dodd, will you tane the stand. 

Do we have copies of his statement? 

Mr. Wormser. It has been physically impossible to get them out 
in final form at this moment. If you desire them, we can in the 
course of the afternoon prepare them for you. 

The Chairman". I understood they would be available this morning. 

Mr. Wormser. Counsel did not have time to read them. It has 
been quite an effort to get this done so fast. We can have the neces- 
sary corrections made, and have it ready tomorrow morning, anyway. 
Miss Casey thinks we can have it ready this afternoon. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, is there an agenda available at what 
witnesses will be called during the balance of the week and next week? 

The Chairman. As I understand, Mr. Wormser expects Mr. Dodd 
to consume, in the scope of his portion of the committee's operation, 
this morning's session, and tomorrow morning's session, and possibly 
Wednesday morning's session, and that when Mr. Dodd completes 
his statement, then we will go over until, if agreeable with the com- 
mittee, next Monday, so that Mr. Dodd will be the only witness for 
this period. 

All right, Mr. Dodd. 

Without objection, I think it is the understanding of the committee 
that all of the witnesses will be sworn. Will you raise your hand? 

I do solemnly swear. 

Mr. Dodd. I do solemnly swear. 

The Chairman. The testimony I shall give shall be the truth. 

Mr. Dodd. That the testimony I shall give shall be the truth. 

The Chairman. The whole truth. 

Mr. Dodd. The whole truth. 

The Chairman. And nothing but the truth. 

Mr. Dodd. And nothing but the truth. 

The Chairman. So help me God. 

Mr. Dodd. So help me God. 


Mr. Wormser. Mr. Dodd, will you state your full name for the 

Mr. Dodd. Norman Dodd. 

Mr. Wormser. I think that you are sufficiently identified as the 
director of research for this committee. Will you then tell the com- 
mittee the story of the direction of research, your approach to the 
problem, and the various steps which you took in conducting your 
research, please? 


Mr. Dodd. I will be very glad to, Mr. Worcnser. May I read a 
brief statement beforehand ? 

Mr. Wormser. By all means. 

Mr. Dodd. As the report which follows may appear to have stressed 
one aspect of foundation giving to the exclusion of others, I take this 
opportunity to call attention to the fact that innumerable public bene- 
fits are traceable to the philanthropy in which foundations have been 
engaged. Both in volume and kind, these benefits must appear to any 
student of this subject to have been without parallel, and in the vast 
majority of instances, they must be regarded as beyond question either 
from the standpoint of their conformity to the intentions of their 
donors, or from the standpoint of the truly American quality of their 

I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation which without exception 
has been extended by foundations to the staff whenever it was found 
necessary to solicit information from them, either directly or in 

And finally, I take this opportunity to state that in the degree the 
following report appears to be critical, I sincerely hope it will be 
deemed by the committee, foundations, and the public alike, to be 
constructively so. 

It was in this spirit that the work of which this report is a descrip- 
tion was undertaken and completed. 

Immediately the staff was assembled, studies were initiated to secure 
a full understanding of the ground which had been covered by the Cox 
committee, as disclosed in the hearings which it held, the files which 
it maintained, and the report it rendered. 

To determine the dimensions of the subject to be investigated and 
studied, and to satisfy myself as to the contents and its probable rami- 
fication, to define the words "foundation," "un-American," "subver- 
sive," "political," and "propaganda," in the sense in which they were 
used in House Resolution 217, and if possible to dispose of their con- 
troversial connotations ; to familiarize myself with the expressions of 
purpose customarily used in foundation charters. 

I would like for a moment to go back to the first item which had to 
do with our effort to understand what the Cox committee had covered, 
in the way of this subject, and also what its files contained, and men- 
tion that one of the first situations or conditions with which we were 
confronted was the incompletion of the Cox committee files. That was 
so marked that we had occasion to report the nature of that incomple- 
tion to Mr. Snader, the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Wormser, with your permission, I would like to read the letter 
which we sent to Mr. Snader as a matter of record. 

Mr. Wormser. Please do, sir. What is the date of that letter? 

Mr. Dodd. This letter is dated January 26, 1954, and it was for- 
warded to Mr. Snader by Mr. McKiece, our assistant research director, 
who devoted a portion of his time to an intense study of these files. 
This letter is to Mr. Snader, and from Mr. McNiece : 

On December 1, 1953, Mr. John Marshall and I visited you in your office to 
discuss the condition of the files of the Cox committee, as they were turned over 
to us. At this time we advised you that in our opinion the files were not 
complete, and it was understood that we would write you at a later date. We 
are now in a position to give some definite, but not necessarily complete, informa- 
tion on this subject. 


A cumulative list of tax-exemption organizations, published by Internal Reve- 
nue Bureau : We have been advised that the foregoing publication of 1950 and 
the 1952 supplement were used as a check list in making up the mailing list 
for questionnaires submitted by the Cox committee. These publications are 
definitely missing from the flies. 

Jjarge questionnaires : The Cox committee designed three sets of question- 
naires, namely, "large" form A and form B. The large questionnaires -were 
sent to a specially selected list of foundations, with large endowments. This 
list comprised about 50 of the large foundations, and questionnaires in duplicate 
were received from them. One complete set of these 50 duplicate question- 
naires is missing from the flies. 

Hearing flies : An index in one of the filing drawers is labeled "Hearing file " 
and we have no way of knowing positively what was in this section, but we have 
reason to believe that considerable material should have been in there. As 
received it contained very little, and some of the indexed folders were com- 
pletely empty. 

Statistical summaries : We know that considerable statistical work was done 
over a period of about 4 months, but we have found no statistical material 
whatever in the files. 

Reports of interviews : In its final report, the Cox committee states that it 
"interviewed personally more than 200 persons deemed to possess pertinent 

We would assume that a record of these interviews covering pertinent infor- 
mation should be found in the flies. We have found very little material that 
would conform to this description. 

Prepared statements : The Cox committee in its final report says that it had 
received the prepared statements of approximately 50 other persons deemed 
to have had some knowledge of the subject. We find relatively little material 
of this nature in the files. As outlined to you in our conversation, we are calling 
this to your attentilon, because we wish to have it understood that we cannot 
assume responsibility for such material as may be missing from the files as 
loaned to us. 

The Chairman. I think that that is very pertinent, especially in 
view of the fact that this committee now has the responsibility for 
those files, and it is well for it to become part of the record, that alL 
of the files were not in the custody of the Clerk of the House of Bep- 
resentatives when this committee was formed, and the committee took 
over only such files as were in his custody at the time. 

Does the committee have any other comment? 

Mr. Hats. Does the witness intend to attach some special signifi- 
cance to this, or is it just merely a report of what this committee 

Mr. Dodd. May I answer, sir ? 

Mr. Hats. Yes. 

Mr. Dodd. No significance ; merely a matter of record and for pur- 
poses of protection on the basis we assumed we were responsible for 
them, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. I notice in the opening paragraph, and perhaps the 
second paragraph, it says, "In our opinion the files were incomplete." 
It seems to me an inventory of what we received would be about as 
much authority as we have over these files, one way or the other. 

Mr. Dodd. We were concerned with identifying, as best we could, 
the nature of the material that was missing, rather than just taking 
an inventory of what was there. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Dodd. Simultaneously, I undertook additional studies, one to 
determine the validity of the criticism which had been leveled against 
the work done by the Cox committee, and two, to substantiate or 
disprove the prevalent charge that foundations were guilty of favor- 
itism in the making of educational grants, and three, to examine the 


charge that as a result of this favoritism, a few selected universities 
and scholars had been able to dominate the field of research to thfeit 
•own advantage. Finally, it was to prove or disprove the accusations 
that foundations had been responsible for a deterioration in the stand- 
ards to which our scholars and teachers had previously conformed^ 

Once the aforementioned studies had been completed, keeping in 
mind the 5 determinations which the committee had been directed 
to make, we concluded that the dimensions of the subject to be investi- 
gated and studied were some six to seven thousand foundations, capital 
resources approximating $7y 2 billion, annual disbursements in the 
form of grants amounting to at least $300 million, a time span of 50 
years — that is, from 1903 to 1953 — and a number of grants conserva- 
tively estimated at 50,000, with approximately 15 percent of these 
funds concentrated in % of 1 percent of the number of foundations, 
specifically Carnegie and Rockefeller, which happened to be the 

In content, I discovered the subject included grants for every form 
of charity, and support of research, within the limits of the arts, the 
sciences, and the religions and the philosophies, and the many sub- 
divisions of these well-known disciplines. 

It also embraced grants to cover the cost of such physical facilities 
as school and university buildings, hospitals, churches, settlement 
houses, homes for recuperation, libraries and art galleries, and the 
permanent collections housed in each. 

Finally I found that the subject included a myriad of fellowships 
awarded to scholars and artists active in fields too numerous to men- 
tion, let alone classify for the purpose of accurate evaluation. 

I might mention here, Mr. Wormser, that out of many of the statis- 
tical compilations which we indulged in, we were able to graphically 
portray the growth of foundations, the growth of their capital re- 
sources, which show a marked growth and tend to support the chair- 
man's opening statement that these could be expected to continue to 
grow from this point on. 

The Chairman. Is that too extensive to be included in the 

Mr. Dodd. That is a rather long report, Mr. Chairman, of the method 
we used to arrive at these estimates, but it certainly could be included 
in the record, if you would like. 

Mr. Wormser. I suggest that it would be very valuable, Mr. Chair- 
man to have it included. 

Mr. Hats. What is this again? 

Mr. Dodd. It is a description, Mr. Hays, of the manner in which 
we had to resort for a reasonable working estimate of the number 
of foundations, the size of their resources, the rate at which they 
had grown since roughly 1903, and the rate at which the capital 
resources of foundations had grown on an accumulative basis. 

Mr. Wormser. Would you like it read, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Hays. As I understand, it is a description of how the staff 
went at estimating the field that they had to work in, and it is com- 
pletely factual and no opinions. 

Mr. Dodd. No opinions. 

Mr. Hats. All right, I have no objection. 
- The Chairman. Without objection, it will be embodied in the 


• i (The statement is as follows:) ■..■;: ■ :■•■■"' 

•' : Capital Values and ■Growth of Charitable Foundations 

It is apparent from the Cox committee hearings and from the available litera- 
ture on the subject that there is relatively little information from which the 
magnitude and growth of charitable foundations can be judged. 

It seems rather illogical to devote serious and extended consideration to 
this complex problem without having some idea of the number, size, and char- 
acteristic ' of these charitable organizations that must exert such a great 
irifltrence 6h J our social and economic life. ■ 

" The Russell Sage Foundation has published some excellent studies in which 
the actual data available have been limited to a relatively small number 
of foundations. ■■ ' •'■■■" ; - ; "' Ji 

The Cox committee reported that it had sent questionnaires to more than 
1,500 organizations. Based on the record in the files, there was a return from 
approximately 70 percent of these organizations. These returns have provided 

the basis for the analysis in this report 

.The Jntemal Revenue Bureau every 4 years publishes a list of tax-exempt 
organisations in the United States. ;in the intermediate 2-year period a sup- 
plement is published, The latest major list is revised to June 30, 1950, , and 
the supplement to- June 30, 1952. These are the latest lists available at the 
present time'and it will be some time after midyear of this year before a new 
list is available. It -so happens that there is quite a close agreement between 
these publication dates just mentionejd and the effective dates of the question- 
naires frpm the Cox committee. A large number of them were as of December 
31, 1951, land a small number at the end of some fiscal period prior to 1952, 

Analysis of this Internal Revenue Bureau list indicates that as of this 
period there were approximately 38,000 tax-exempt organizations: in the. United 
States. A sampling of the pages in an attempt to identify foundations included 
in this list indicated that there may be &n approximate total of 6,300 out of the 
38,000 organizations that might be called loniidations. We believe that we are 
within clpae limits of accuracy if we state that there are between 0.O0& and 7,000 
foundations in existence as of this period. 


It should be realized that the ensuing tabulations cannot be accurate from the 
standpoint of good accounting standards. A large proportion of the small 
foundations is not endowed hut derives its capital itom recu*rfag c^otrtbBtions. 
Some endowments are reported at book value andnoihers &t market yalne. -These 
must be accepted as reported. It is believed that the greater, part of the total 
value is based on' market value. In the ease of foundations with capital of $10 
million and over, essentially all are endowed, 

The questionnaires included in the analysis are of two types: the large and 
form A as described by the Cox committee. Of the total of 952 included in the 
financial summaries, 65 cover foundations with capital in excess of $10 million 
and 887 of less than $10 million capital. Approximately 150 of the form A ques- 
tionnaries were excluded from the financial summaries because information on 
capital, income, or both were omitted from the answers returned. These were 
included, however, in the numerical growth data. 

: In the tabulations of capital, endowment capital and current contributory 
capital are added to obtain total values. 


Data from 46 of the large foundations as included in this tabulation were cov- 
ered by the large questionnaires. These are the big-name foundations and were 
specifically and individually selected as such by the Cox committee. The total 
values applying to this group were included without change in the grand totals. 

Nineteen foundations with capital in excess of $10 million were included in 
the tabulations with the 887 that are under $10 million because nearly all of 
these were included with a form A questionnaire. This makes 906 question- 
naires included in the form A group and these are considered to be about 15 
percent of the total remaining foundations in the Bureau of Internal Revenue 
list as previously mentioned. j ,*,- ": 



For this reason, the actual values in this group of 906 were multiplied by 6,66 to 
arrive at a total capital value of the foundations estimated in the Internal 
Revenue Bureau tax-exempt list. This estimate is" considered; to I be Jan. the 
conservative side and in any event sufficiently accurate as a good indication of 
growth trends and total values involved. 


The financial classification of the foundations made in accordance with the 
foregoing remarks is shown in table I. The first 3 columns show the actual 
results derived from the questionnaires, the last 2 show the estimated total 
values for each size classification listed. The values shown in the last 2 
columns are 6.66 times their respective values in the 2 prior columns except ior 
the 46 large ones and the resulting grand total as previously mentioned. 

Table I 
[In thousands of dollars] 

Endowment classification,! Form A 

Number of 

Total en- 
dowment l 


Adjusted en- 
dowment • 


Less than $60,000 

$50,000 to $99,999 ...... 

$100,000 W $349,999 

$250,000 to $499,999... 

$500,000 to $749,999 

$750,000 to $999,999..., 

$l,QOO>0dOts $9,999,S99 

$10,000,000 and over:. 

Total, Form A . 

Large questionnaires 

Grand total 

Total, $10,000,000 and over 







29, 107 

20, 604 


■38$, 36g 


4. 133 


47, 248 

128, 885 

193, 850 


' 168,933 



12, 622 
36, 162 

■• S'il 5 - 

117, 660 




5, 333, 319 










4, 159, 141 


1 "Endowment classification" includes endowments as well as contributions to nonendowed bt* "con- 
tributory" foundations thrt were' on hand as of end of calendar or fiscal year 1961. 

Adjusted data include total ■ endowment and income reported on>Form> A que%*i6nn4f*8s multiplied by 
6.66 because the 906 questionnaires included in the summary are estimated to be 15 percent of those included 
in the tax-exempt list. 

It will be noted that the estimated total capital for the foundations is 
nearly $7.5 billion and total annual income nearly $675 million. Both of these 
figures will be subject to considerable variation from year to year, in part be- 
cause of the proportion of "contributory" foundations in the smaller groups and 
because of varying earnings between good years and bad. 

The proportions or percentages of foundations, their capital and their income 
in each capital classification as well as the percentage of income to capital in 
each class are shown in table II. 

Tabus II. — Percentage distribution 

Endowment classification, Form A questionnaires 

Percent of 


Percent of 



Percent of 

Income as 

percent of 


Less than $50,000 

$50,000 to $99,999 

$100,000 to $249^999 

$250,000 to $499,999...... j 

$500,000 to $749,999 

$750,000 to $999,999 

$1,000,000 to $9,999,999 

$10,000,000 and over 

Total, Form A 

Large questionnaires 

Qrand total 

Total, $10,000,000 and over 
































It is of interest to note that the foundations of less than $50,000 capital are 
shown to comprise about 40 percent of the total foundations, 0.5 percent of the 
capital and 5.4 percent of the income with a ratio of income to capital of 89.2 
percent. These strange ratios result from the fact that these small foundations 
are largely of the nonendowed or contributory type and receive frequent contri- 
butions of cash from creators and friends. Since much of their income is cur- 
rently expended the ratio of income to capital is very high; 

At the other extreme are the large foundations of capital of $10 million and 
over. These account for 7 percent of the number, 56 percent of the endowment, 
and 32 percent of the income. Some cash contributions are occasionally received 
by these and their ratio of income to endowment is about 5 percent. 

An interesting feature of this table is that the ratio of income to capital 
decreases quite steadily as the capital classification increases as would be 
expected from the foregoing remarka This decrease is evident in the last 
column of table I. 

The great increase in foundations created in the decade of 1940-49 is featured 
by the large percentage of small foundations which in turn and as previously 
stated are composed of a higher percentage of nonendowed or contributory 
foundations. Based on the answers to the Cox committee questionnaires, the 
following comparative figures apply : 

Nonendowed foundations created : Percent of total 

Decade 1930-39-.. . . 12. ^ 

Decade 1940-49 27, 5 


Table III which follows shows data applying to the 65 foundations whose capi- 
tal is $10 million and over : 

Table III 

Number of foundations , F _, 66 

Original capital l $590, 752, 000 

1951 capital x $2, 434, 628, 000 

Ratio 1951 capital to original capital 4.1 

Average annual total income, 1946 to 1951, inclusive $113, 729, 000 

Ratio annual income to 1951 capital™. ___ 4. 7 

Cash on hand, 1951 , $40, 559, 000 

Cash, percent of income . 35, 7 

Perpetual capital life $1, 120, 202, 000 

Limited capital life $99,777,000 

Conditional capital life $1, 214, 749, 000 

Percent perpetual capital life 46. 

Percent limited capital life 4.1 

Percent conditional capital life 49. 9 

Number of corporations . k 46 

Number of trusts— , . 17 

Number of associations.- . 2 

Number of operating fpundations________„ ___„___ 19, 

Number of nonoperating foundations 26 

Number of combination foundations . 20 

Average Capital per foundation $37,400,000 

Average income per foundation : , $1,740,000 

1 Includes capital of endowed and nonendowed foundations. 

This table calls for little comment. The slight discrepancy between the figures 
of 5.1 percent in table II and 4.7 percent in table III for earnings as percent of 
capital is explained by the larger percentage of "adjusted" earnings estimated 
for the 19 large foundations included in Form A group as compared with the 46 
in the large group. 

As previously outlined, contributions to the nonendowed organizations are 
considered as income and unexpended funds largely constitute the capital in lieu 
of securities in the portfolios of endowed organizations. This results in a higher 
ratio of ihcome to capital than prevails in the endowed organizations. 

It is also of interest to note the relative proportions of foundation capital in- 
cluded in the perpetual, limited and conditional life classifications. 



, The, endowments of large foundations with definitely limited life comprise only 
about 4 percent of the total endowments of this large foundation group while the 
perpetual and conditional groups have 46 percent and 50 percent respectively of 
the totals. There seems to be very little tendency for the trustees of the con- 
ditional life group seriously to reduce their endowments. This might naturally 
be expected. 

The numerical data show the number of foundations created each year and 
ifhe financial data show the values of the endowments reported for 1951 for the 
foundations created each year. The accumulated endowments at 1951 values are 
also shown. The values just described are shown in chart I- There is no appre- 
ciable increase or decrease shown in the trend of endowment values added since 
^9^0. The trend is. essentially horizontal for these large foundations. 


, The rate of growth both numerically and in capital values of these large 
fjiljfldattoijs during the last 50 years is shown in table IV. 

d^AsLE IV .-—-Foundations with capital $1Q million and over {includes only those 

reporting on questionnaires) 

J: ., [In thousands of dollars] 

' Year created 


1901 . 






l"907— . --.-■-. 
1908..,.— — 


1910 - 


1912— - 


1914 — _ 

1915 -- 

1916 ;. 






1922. _-._ 





1951 en- 

1951 accu- 

$11, 769 
10, 856 
13, 173 


10, 545 

335, 126 

17, 118 

28, 391 
44, 762 
16, 673 
13, 703 

41, 898- 

210, 418 

41, 685 

$22, 625 


52, 174 

78, 836 

78, 836 

239, 733 

250, 278 

585, 404 



602, 522 

630, 913 


756, 845 

773, 518 

787, 221 

787, 221 


1, 039, 507 

1, 081, 192 

Year created 

1926— .... 

1927 ... 

1928— — 







1935 — 












1947- — .. 















1951 en- 

56, 814 

125, 369 
15, 605 


548, 409 




154, 387 

16, 817 


1951 accu- 

$1, 134, 103 
1, 190, 917 
1, 221, 155 
1, 232. 855 
1, 358, 224 
1, 370, 224 
1, 440, 212 
2, 112, 894 
2, 142, 228 
2, 197, 348 
2, 224, 639 
2, 253, 226 
2. 407, 613 
2, 424, 430 
2, 424, 430 
2, 434, 730 

2, 434, 730 



The influence of some of the large foundations of 1951, hut shown in the year 
of their origin, is apparent on the chart. These are shown in the following 

Table Y 








100, 000 






Duke --- - '-- --- -- - -- 


Kellogg- . 







1 . 







FtNANaAL Growth 



- — ( VALUES 














AT 1 

9,57 V/ 











"*■ lux 




z *• 





AT I9*i i/A/nm 









1 ■ 








*\ > 



06 19 



-54— pi 

i. 1 

if i* 


U> IS 



io ia 

W » 










The Cox Committee files contained about 1,100 questionnaires. We : have 
■classified these numerically according to the year of their origin. The numerical 
growth of these regardless of type or size is shown for each year since 1900 and 
the accumulated increase year by year in table VI. These data are also shown 
in graphic form on chart II. The numerical-growth trend shown in table VI and 
on chart II is of course confined to the Cox Committee list. It should be reason- 
ably indicative of the growth trend of the whole group of foundations on the tax- 
exempt list. 

Table VI 


lated 1 



Prior to 1900 . 


















; 16 















■ 26 



1901 — — 

































1912 ... ... 



1913 — 

































The high peak centering in 1945 is composed preponderantly of the smaller 
foundations and is apparently a byproduct of a change in the tax laws and of 
a profitable period in the American economy. Due to the sharp decline from 
1945, the trend of the accumulated increase curve has flattened considerably since 





Comparative data on cash and income, supplement to capital valuer and •growth 

of charitable foundations I 


Altman Foundation 

M. D. Anderson Foundation . 

Avalon Foundation 

Hall Brothers Foundation. -- 

Louis D. Beaumont Foundation 

Buhl Foundation -— — 

Carnegie Corp. of New York.. 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of teaching. 

Carnegie Institution 

A. C. Carter Foundation -. 

Cullen Foundation - 

The Commonwealth Fund ..-_ 

Danforth Foundation... — 

Donner Foundation... 

Duke Endowment. . ..—„_..-... 

El Pomar Foundation.. i 

Maurice and Laura Falk Foundation 

Samuel S. Fels Fund 

The Field Foundation... 

Max C. Fleischman Foundation.. 

Ford Foundation 

Henry Clay Frick Educational Commission 

Firestone Foundation 

General Education Board. .-._._:._.. 

Ed wm'Gould Foundation for Children 

J. Simon Guggenheim Foundation... ^..-. 

Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation 

John A. Hartford Foundation i.. 

Charles Hayden Foundation ;... 

Louis and Maud Hill Family Foundation 

Eugene Higgins Scientific Trust 

Houston Endowment 

^Godfrey M. Hyams Trust 

'Institute for Advanced Study 

James Foundation of New York 

Juilliard Musical Foundation ., 

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . 

W. K. Kellogg Foundation 

Kresge Foundation.. — _ 

Kate Macy Ladd Fund... 

E. D. Libbey Trust.. T — , . 

illy Endowment ;...,_... 

ohn and Mary Markje Foundation 

Josiah Macy Foundation ._-._. i i..J_. 

A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust 

Mellon Institute of Industrial Research 

R. K. Mellon Foundation :. 

Millbank Memorial Fund ,—■-.. — i 

William H: Minor Foundation — 

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ..- 

William Rockhill Nelson Trust 

New York Foundation >._'.. 

Old Dominion Foundation.. : ,j. ^ H . 

Olin Foundation '. 

Permanent Charity Fund... __ 

Pew Memorial Foundation 

Z. S. Reynolds Foundation 

Rockefeller Foundation. 

Rosenberg Foundation 

Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation 

Russell Sage Foundation 

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation 

Surdna Foundation 

Twentieth Century . 

Estate of Harry C. Trexler 

William C. Whitney Foundation 

William Volker Charities 

"" 1903 


1, 698 
1, 171 











.. 482 











11, 364 




1, 329 









2, 68ft 

- Cash, 
percent of 

percent of' 









" Ji."6 

26. 2 
2, 765. 
. 568.0 

■i 4.2 
..i 4.T 
14. 4 
■ 7.8. 
, 3.1 
; .1 

It is believed that the data portrayed in this report, while not of provable 
accuracy, are sufficiently representative of actual conditions to provide reason- 
able guidance in appraising the magnitude of the problems involved. This, 
should assist in the consideration of any suggestions that may seem advisable for 
possible legislative action. 

T. M. MoNiece, 


Mr. WoBitSER. Is there anything you -would like to summarize out 
of those statistics now, Mr. Dodd ? 

Mr. Dodd. Only the pertinent figures which I gave ; namely, some 
<6,000 to 7,000 foundations and $7.5 billion of resources, and so forth. 

Coming now to the subject of definitions, and for our own working 
purposes, from our point of view, foundations were defined as those 
organizations resulting from the capitalization of the desire on the 
part of an individual or a group of individuals to divert his or their 
wealth from private use to public purpose." Un-American and sub- 
versive were defined as any action having as its purpose the alteration 
of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by 
other than constitutional means. This definition was derived from a 
study of this subject which had been made by the Brookings Institute 
at the request of the House Un-American Affairs Committee some 
time ago. 

Political : Any action favoring either a candidacy for public office 
or legislation or attitudes normally expected to lead to legislative 

Propaganda : Action having as its purpose the spread of a particu- 
lar doctrine or a specifically identifiable system of principles, and we 
noted that in use this word had come to infer half-truths, incomplete 
truths, as well as techniques of a covert nature. 

Mr. Wokmser. Pardon me, Mr. Dodd. I would like to interpolate 
at this moment that we have asked the Bureau of Internal Revenue to 
give us what guidance they can in their own interpretation of these 
difficult terms, particularly the terms "subversion" and "political use 
of propaganda." They have not yet come forward with that material. 
I hope they do, and we shall introduce it in the record if they produce 

Mr. Dodd. These were essentially working definitions from the point 
of view of the staff's research and are not to be regarded as conclusive. 
. Charter provisions : The purposes of foundations were revealed by 
these studies to be generally of a permissive rather than a mandatory 
character. Customarily they were expressed to place the burden of 
interpretation on either trustees or directors. Such words as educa- 
tional, charitable, welfare, scientific, religious, were used predomi- 
nantly to indicate the areas in which grants were permitted. Phrases 
such as "for the good of humanity," and "for the benefit of mankind," 
occurred quite frequently. The advancements of such general con- 
cepts as peace and either international accord or international under- 
standing as a purpose for which foundations had been established. 

To illustrate the extent to which the burden of interpretation is 
frequently placed on trustees of foundations. I cite the following : 

Administered and operated by the trustees exclusive for the benefit of it, the 
income therefrom shall be distributed by the trustees exclusively in the aid of 
such religious, educational, charitable, and scientific uses and purposes as, in 
the judgment of the trustees, shall be in furtherance of the public welfare and 
tend to assist, encourage, and promote the well-doing or the well-being of man- 
kind or of any community. 

Cox committee criticism : From our point of view there seemed to be 
eight criticisms which had been made of the work of the Cox com- 
mittee. These eight were that time and facility had been inadequate ; 
that excuses concerning grants to Communists had been too readily 
accepted; that trustees and officers had not been placed under oath; 


that only a few foundations had been investigated; that the propa- 
ganda activities of foundations had not been investigated ; that foun- 
dations had not been asked why they did not support projects of ai 
pro-American type; that extensive evidence had not been used 

Mr. Hays. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Will you read that last 
one again, please ? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, Mr. Hays. Foundations had not been asked why 
they did not support projects of a pro- American type. 

Mr. Hats. I would say that is the kind of a question that is some- 
thing of the order of when did you stop beating your wife. 

Mr. Dodd. Yes. I mention that because it bad come to our atten- 

The Chairman. As I understand, you are now reading from the 
report of the Cox committee, or the substance of it ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Dodd. No. I am just summarizing, Mr. Chairman, the nature 
of the criticisms which had come to our attention with respect to the 
work of the Cox committee. 

Mr. Hays. That question implies that the foundations gave nothing 
to anything that was pro-American. 

Mr. Dodd. Yes ; it does. That is one of the criticisms. 

Mr. Hays. Where did the criticism come from ? Is it the criticism 
of the stafiy or where did you dig it up ? 

Mr. Dodd. No. This criticism, as we understood it was one of sev- 
eral made of the work of the Cox committee by Mr. Reece. 

Mr. Hays. If he wants to accept it as his criticism, that is all right. 
I just want to know the source of it. Just be sure that I f>m not asso- 
ciated with it, because I don't like those kinds of questions. I do not 
know whether they gave anything to r>ro- American activities '*r not, 
but I have my opinion that they probably did. 

Mr. Dodd. Yes. The next one was that extensive evidence had not 
been used, and finally, that the Ford Foundation had not been suffi- 
ciently investigated. 

Foundation criticisms: Our studies indicated very clearly how 
and why a critical attitude might have developed from the assump- 
tion that foundations operating within the sphere of education had 
been guilty of favoritism in making their grants. After having 
analyzed responses relating to this subject from nearly a thousand 
colleges in the United States, it became reasonably evident that only 
a few had participated in the grants which had been made. 

Mr. Hays. I have a question right there. You say a thousand 
colleges. How many questionnaires did you send out? 

Mr. Dodd. Approximately that number. 

Mr. Hays. You got practically complete response ? 

Mr. Dodd. We got a very high percentage of responses. 

Mr. Hays. What percentage? 

Mr. Dodd. I would say the last I heard, Mr. Hays, was something- 
in the neighborhood of TO percent. 

Mr. Hays. I just wanted that in the record so when they investi- 
gate foundations in the next Congress nobody will say that they 
missed certain ones. 

Mr. Dodd. Incidentally, a mathematical tabulation of the results 
of those questionnaires is in the process of being completed now. 

However, when the uniqueness of the projects supported by founda- 
tions was considered, it became understandable why institutions suchi 


as Columbia, Harvard, Chicago, and the University of California 
had received moneys m amounts far greater than had been dis- 
tributed to others. Originally scholars capable of handling these 
unique subjects were few. Most of them were members of these 
seemingly favored institutions. Now that these subjects no longer 
appear to be regarded as unique, and sufficient time has elapsed within 
which to train such competent specialists, the tendency of foundations 
to distribute grants over a wider area has become noticeable. 

The purported deterioration of scholarships and in the techniques 
of teaching which lately has attracted the attention of the American 
public has apparently been caused primarily by a premature ef- 
fort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the 
level of applied science. 

As this report will hereafter contain many statements which appear ' 
to be conclusive, I emphasize here that each one of them must be 
understood to have resulted from studies which were essentially ex- 
ploratory. In no sense should they be considered as proof. I men- 
tion this in order to avoid the necessity of qualifying each statement 
as made. 

Confronted with the foregoing seemingly justifiable conclusions, 
and the task of assisting the committee to discharge its duties as set 
forth in House Resolution 217 within the 17-month period, August 1, 
1953, to December 31, 1954, it became obvious that it would be im- 
possible to perform this task if the staff were to concentrate on the in- 
ternal practices and the grant making policies of foundations them- 
selves. It also became obvious that if the staff was to render the 
service for which it had been assembled, it must expose those factors 
which were common to all foundations and reduce them to terms which 
would permit their effect to be compared with the purposes set forth 
in foundation charters, the principles and the form of the United 
States Government, and the means provided by the Constitution for 
altering either these principles or this form. 

In addition, these common factors would have to be expressed in 
terms which would permit a comparison of their effects with the 
activities and interests connoted by the word "political," and also 
with those ordinarily meant by the word "propaganda." Our effort 
to expose these common factors revealed that there was only one, 
namely, the public interest. 

It further revealed that, if this finding were to prove useful to the 
committee, it would be necessary to define the public interest. We 
believe this would be found in the principles and the form of the 
Federal Government as expressed in our Constitution, and in other 
basic founding documents. This will explain why subsequent studies 
were made by the staff of the size, the scope, the form, and the func- /„ 
tions of the Federal Government for the period 1903-53, the results ^^ 
of which are set forth in detail in the report by Thomas M. McNiece, 
assistant research director, entitled "The Economics of the Public 

~ These original studies of the public interest disclose that during 

the 4 years 1933-36 a change took place which was so drastic as to 1 

constitute a revolution. They also indicated conclusively that the \ 

responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had I 

been transferred heavily to the executive branch of the Federal Gov- \ 

ernment, that a corresponding change in education had taken place \ 


from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this revo- 
lution had occurred without violence and with full consent of an 
-overwhelming majority of the electorate: In seeking to explain this 
i unprecedented phenomenon, subsequent studies pursued by the staff 
| clearly showed it could not have occurred peacefully or with the con- 
, \ sent of the majority unless education in the United States had pre- 
^> -A pared in advance to endorse it. 

r"" These nn< iings appeared to justify two postulates, the first of which 
I was that the policies and practices of institutions purporting or 
! obliged by statute to serve the public interest Would reflect this phe- 
nomenon, and second, that foundations whose trustees were empowered 
to make grants for educational purposes would be no exception. 

On the basis of these, after consultation with counsel, I directed 
the staff to explore foundation practices, educational procedures, and 
the operation of the executive branch of the Federal Government 
since 1903 for reasonable evidence of a purposeful relationship be- 
tween them. 

- Our ensuing studies disclosed such a relationship and that it had 
existed continuously since the beginning of this 50-year period. In 
addition, these studies seemed to give evidence of a response to our 
involvement in international affairs. Likewise, they seemed to reveal 
that grants had been made by foundations, chiefly by Carnegie and 
Rockefeller, which had been used to further this purpose by ( 1 ) direct- 
ing education in the United States toward an international frame of 
reference and discrediting the traditions to which it had been dedi- 
cated, by training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice 
to the executive branch of the Federal Government, by decreasing 
the dependency of education upon the resources of the local com- 
munity, and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent 
in this American tradition, by changing both school and college 
curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles 
underlying the American way of life, by financing experiments de- 
signed to determine the most effective means by which education 
could be pressed into service of a political nature. 

At this point the staff became concerned with (1) identifying all 
the elements comprising the operational relationship between foun- 
dations, education, and government, and determining the objective to 
which this relationship had been dedicated, and the functions per- 
formed by each of its' parts (2) estimating the cost of this relationship 
and discovering how these costs were financed. Understanding the 
administration of this relationship and the methods by which it was 
controlled (3) evaluating the effect of this operational relationship 
upon the public interest and upon the social structure of the United 
States (4) comparing the practices of foundations actively involved in 
this relationship with the purposes for which they were established, 
and with the premises upon which their exemption from taxation by 
the Federal Government is based. 

In substance this approach to the problem of providing the commit- 
tee with a clear understanding of foundation operations can best be 
•described as one of reasoning from a total effect to its primary or 
secondary Causes. We have used the scientific method and included 
both inductive and deductive reasoning as a check against the possi- 
bility that a reliance upon only one of these might lead to an erro- 
neous set of conclusions. 


Neither the formal books and records maintained by foundations 
operating within the educational sphere, nor any of their supplemental 
or less formal reports to the public make it possible to appraise the 
effect of their grants with any degree of accuracy. We therefore 
needed to turn to the grantees rather than the grantors for the infor- 
mation required by the committee to make the specific determinations 
requested by Congress in House Resolution 217, namely, have foun- 
dations used their resources for purposes contrary to those for which 
they were established, have they used their resources for purposes 
which can be classed as un-American, have they used their resources 
for purposes which can be regarded as subversive, have they used their 
resources for political purposes, and finally^ have they resorted to 
propaganda in order to achieve the objectives for which they have 
made grants. 

To insure these determinations being made on the basis of imper- 
sonal fact, I directed the staff to make a study of the development of 
American education since the turn of the century, and of the trends 
and techniques of teaching, and of the development of curricula since 
that time. As a result it became quite evident that this study would 
have to be enlarged to include the accessory agencies to which these 
developments and trends have been traced. The work of the staff was 
then expanded to include an investigation of such agencies as the 
American Council of Learned Societies, the National Research Coun- 
cil, the Social Science Research Council, the American Council on 
Education, the National Education Association, the League for Indus- 
trial Democracy, the Progressive Education Association, the Ameri- 
can Historical Association, the John Dewey Society, and the Anti- 
defamation League. 

Mr. Wbrmser, that covers the start and the scope and the manner 
in which the work of the staff proceeded, and also constitutes' the base 
from which such findings as it will from time to time provide you 
with, were developed. 

The Chairman. Mr. Goodwin. 

Mr, Goodwin. I would like to reserve the right to comment later 
on some portions of the data which Mr. Dodd has just submitted, not 
having an opportunity to see it in writing. I have particular refer- 
ence to that portion of the data which he has presented which referred 
to criticisms of the Cox committee. It so happens, Mr. Chairman, as 
you know, I was a member of the Cox committee. If what he says is,, 
as I understand it to be said, with reference to criticisms that have 
been made, that the effect of that only is that somebody said some- 
thing about what the Cox committee had done or failed to do, I pre- 
sume I have no objections. But I would like to see it actually before 
me, and at that time I may want to have some comment to make. 

The Chairman. Quite so. 

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Goodwin, it does refer to that type of thing. We 
wish to put this committee in a position, if possible, to understand 
whether those were justified or not justified. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. It seems to me as I listened quite carefully to Mr. Dodd's- 
statement, that there were several charges in there that represent 
rather a serious indictment of foundations'. It is difficult to question 
Mr. Dodd or anyone else about a prepared statement without having- 


had a copy of the statement at least before you while it is being read, 
in order to make marginal notes. It has been the custom of committees 
on which I have sat in the past 5^ years that that be done. I would 
suggest that before we go too much further that we recess and give 
him time to get a prepared statement in order that we can intelligently 
ask him some questions about that. 

The Chairman. It was my thought that copies would be available 
not only for the members of the committee, but also for the members 
of the press as far as the press might be interested. Since that com- 
pletes the statement that he prepared to make, unless Mr. Wormser 
and Mr. Koch, you have further questions — the House anyway goes 
in session at noon — I think the Chair would think that we might just 
as well recess so that by morning the statement will be prepared. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, I like Mr. Hays' suggestion very 
much. I deeply regret that we could not have copies at the beginning 
of the hearing this morning. We can have them this afternoon. We 
can have not only copies of the statement as far as it went today, but 
what Mr. Dodd expects to present tomorrow. 

Mr. Hats. I would certainly appreciate it, and I think it would 
expedite the work of the committee if he is going to have a further 
statement tomorrow to have it in our hands at least by morning. It 
would facilitate matters if we could have a copy tonight. 

Mr. Wormser. I quite agree. I think we can give it to you by 

The Chairman. The Chair apologizes for the statement not being 
available, as it was his understanding that it would be available. 

Mr. Hays. I am not blaming the Chair. 

The Chairman. Yes, I understand. I assume without having any 
information that it was due to the element of time. The committee 
then will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in this 
same room through the courtesy of the chairman of the Committee 
on Banking and Currency, and Mr. Hays, who is also a member of 
the committee. 

(Thereupon at 11 a. hi., a recess was taken until Tuesday, May 11, 
1954, at 10 a. m.) 


TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1954 

House di* Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate 

Tax-Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D. C. 

The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 1301 of the House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman 
of the special committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece, Wolcott, Hays, and Pfost. 

Also present: Rene A. Wormser, general counsel; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst; and John Marshall, Jr.* chief clerk of the special 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Wormser, as I understand, Mr. Dodd will resume this morning. 

Mr. Wormser. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Will you take the stand, Mr. 
Dodd, please. 

. Resumed 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Dodd. 

Mr, D^dd. Thank, you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Dodd goes on with his state- 
ment of which we have a copy today, there are 2 or 3 questions about 
Ills statement yesterday which have occurred to me since I have had 
a chance to look at the record. I wonder if it might be well to get 
those in the record now ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; I think so. * 

Mr. Hats. I think it is mainly to clarify some of the things that 
were said. Mr. Dodd, one of the things you said yesterday was that 
only a few foundations were investigated by the Cox committee. 
•Could you give us a figure on that 2 

Mr. Dodd. Offhand in any accurate terms, I do not think so, Mr. 
Bays,, b/iiifc :<i!$Httpared to the number of f owa^tipns that . are involved, 
iihe committee had very little time and* relatively very few were studied. 
I should say probably 10. 

Mr. Hats. You think about 10? . ■ . 

Mr. Dodd. I think about 10. Yes, sir. They had questionnaires 
•on almost 900 of them, Mr. Hays. 



Mr. Hats. This might be a pertinent question. In view of the 
fact this committee has had more time, perhaps 3 or 4 times more, 
how many do you think we will investigate? 

Mr. Dodd. We have gone about it a little differently. As I tried 
to outline in the statement yesterday, we took up the general con- 
cepts that fit all foundations, rather than attempt either by sampling 
or tabulation to arrive at conclusions from a specific number of founda- 
tions. We knew we could never cover the field and there is no pat- 
tern that runs through foundations in general. For example, we 
investigated, rather, we communicated with probably 60 or 70 of the 
largest ones, just to see whether or not any pattern was discernible 
and discovered that they vary so much, one from the other, that we 
could not go at it from that standpoint. There was no basis for 
sampling which would, in my judgment, end in any fair treatment 
of them. 

Mr. Hats. To get back to my question, how many will we be able 
to cover, I do not expect you to be definite. 

Mr. Dodd. In the ordinary sense that a deep investigation of a 
single foundation is concerned, I would say not more than 1 or 2. 

Mr. Hats. Another thing you said yesterday in response to a ques- 
tion of mine was that you had received replies from 700 colleges. 
That is replies to a questionnaire that you had sent out. Can you 
tell me offhand how many of those colleges replying received any 

Mr. Dodd. No, sir, I cannot yet, because the tabulations have not 
been completed. 

Mr. Hats. But they will be available later ? 

Mr. Dodd. They will be available in very complete form. 

Mr. Hats. I have one more question. We discussed a little bit 
yesterday this matter of your statement that the foundations have 
not been asked why they did not support projects of a pro-American' 

Mr. Dodd, That was one of the criticisms. 

Mr. Hats, Yes. I objected to that because I do not like that kind 
of question, but it might well be, since it is in the record, and since- 
it is a statement that you attribute to the chairman of the committee, 
if we could have along with your other definitions the definitions of 
what you mean by pro- American. 

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Hats. Yes. 

The Chairman. Since that question came up, I have taken' occasion- 
to review the speech of mine to which it referred, and this is the 
language preceding the quotation of the 12 criticisms that were listed, 
and I am quoting : 

The committee (referring to the previous so-called Cox committee) in its 
report to the House, House Report 2554, listed 12 complaints and criticisms of 
foundations in the form of the following questions. 

And I simply quoted from what was contained in the report of the 
House committee. So that they were not original criticisms of mine. 
By what I say now, however, I am not disavowing the fact that 
I might accept the criticisms. I just want to get the record straight 
with reference to what was the basis for the so-called 12 criticisms, 
whicl^were raised yesterday. They were taken from the report to 
the House by the previous committee. 


Mr, Hays. In looking this over rather hurriedly I do not see any- 
thing in there in exactly that same specific language. Why do we not 
include this paragraph or two in the hearing record? 

The Chairman. That is entirely satisfactory to me, if it is satis- 
factory td' Mr. Dodd.- 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Hays. Let us go back far enough to pick up the thought ol it. 
In fact, I would say the beginning of the paragraph there, so we 
tffiderstand what it is. 

The Chairman. Yes. It is so-called part 1, stating that the time 
and facilities were inadequate and goes down to part 2, I presume. 

Mr. Hays. Yes. 

The Chairman. So far as I am concerned, I would be glad to have 
sithe whole speech put in the record. 

Mr. Hays. I have no objection. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be so ordered. 

Mr. Hays. Just make sure it is labeled yourspeech. 

(The speech referred to is as follows :) 

Mr. Reece of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker* I do not say this lightly but In my 
•opinion, the subject embraced in House Besolutioji 217, now before us, is one of 
the very important matters pending in Washington. 
7 No one seems to know the number of tax-exempt foundations. There are 
' probably 300,000 foundations and organizations which have great tax exemptions: 
These exemptions cover inheritances, income, and capital-gains taxes. 
The majority of these organizations are honestly and efficiently conducted. 
In the past, they have made a magnificent contribution to our national life. In, 
/ the past, the majority have justified these tax exemptions, even though the 
probable cost to the taxpayers runs into the billions. 
Certainly, the Congress has a right and a duty to inquire into the purposes and 
/ -conduct of "instituftbns to* which the taxpayers have made such great sacrifices. 
In any event, the Congress should concern itself with certain weaknesses and 
dangers which have arisen in a minority of these. 

Some of these activities and some of these institutions support efforts to over- 
throw our Government and to undermine our American way of life. 

These activities urgently require investigation. Here lies the story of bow-r<j — • 
•communism and socialism are financed in the United States, where they get their 
money. It is the story of who pays the bill. 

There is evidence to show there is a diabolical conspiracy back of all this. 
Its aim is the furtherance of socialism in the United States. 

Communism is only a brand name for socialism, and the Communist state 
represents itself to be only the true form of socialism. 
ff The facts will show that, as usual, it is the ordinary taxpaying citizen who 
jf / foots most of the bill, not the Communists and Socialists, who know only how 
f ' to spend money, not how to earn it. 

i The method by which this is done seems fantastic to reasonable men, for 

these Communists and Socialists seize control of fortunes left behind by capi- 
talists when they die, and turn these fortunes around to finance the destruction 
of capitalism. 
The Members of this House were amazed when they read just recently that 
/ the Ford Foundation, largest and newest of the tax-free trust funds, had just i^-" 
appropriated $15 million to be* used to "investigate" the investigating powers of 
Congress, from the critical point of view. 

The^Members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, of which 
Judge Velde is chairman, have a great deal of personal knowledge, gained by 
hours spent in listening to sworn testimony from Communists and ex-Com- 
munists, and those who seek refuge in the fifth amendment, as to the extent of 
the treasonous conspiracy in our Nation. 

No Congressman, who has gone through such experiences, could fail to be 
alarmed at the fact that $15 million from the fortune of the late Henry Ford, 
who probably hated communism more than any other American of his day, was 
to be expended to attack the Congress for inquiring into the nature and extent 
■of the Communist conspiracy, on grounds that Congress was "abridging civil 




liberties" of individuals by requiring them to answer whether or not they were 

After all, no committee of Congress ever had a fund of $15 million to finance 
its inquiries, hire a staff, conduct its research, and print -and circulate its SndingB: 
The House Committee Ba^-^ri^eaii Activities has ^budget of only* $8qgj000 
for this biennium — one-fiftieth of the sum the Ford Foundation proposed to 
expend for a refutation of its findings and those; of other committees of the 
Congress engaged in similar pursuits. 

The Communists have their own agency to smear the committees -of the United 
States Congress and to defend Communists hailed before them. It is called 
the Civil Eights Congress and has been listed by the Attorney General as 
Communist and subversive. To give it liberal respectability, Mr. Paul Hoffman, 
former president of the Ford Foundation, was made chairman of this king- 

t sized Civir Rights Congress endowed by the Ford Foundation. The fund for 
the Republic, as this Ford Foundation agency is named, has announced that 
^_ it will make grants for an immediate and thorough investigation of Congress. 

During the last few weeks of the 82d Congress, a select committee Of seven 
Members of the House conducted — pursuant to House Resolution 561— a some- 
what hasty, limited, and abbreviated inquiry into the administration of certain 
tax-exempt foundations,- including the huge Ford Foundation. 

The House passed the resolution to create this select committee on April 4, 
1952, and on July 2, 1952, by a vote of 247 to 99, voted $75,000 for the investi- 
gation. But actually, the counsel and the staff only started its work early in 
September, and-thus, had only 4 months to carry out the task entrusted to it 
it by Congress. Hearings were started late in November and only 17 days were 
devoted to hearing witnesses. 

The select committee's work was further handicapped by the fact that its 
chairman, Hon. Eugene B. Cox; who was primarily; responsible for the creation 
of the select committee, fell ill during the hearings and died before the com- 
mittee submitted its final report to Congress. I was prevented from attending 
these hearings, as a minority member of the select committee, by serious illness 
in my family. 

The select committee of the 82d Congress filed its report on January 1, 1953. 
In signing the report, I inserted a notation at its end with the distinct intention 
of introducing a resolution to continue the investigation of foundations and 
their subversive activities in this Congress. Pursuant to this notation, I intro- 
duced on April 23, 1953, a House Resolution 217, to create a committee by this 
Congress to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of tax-exempt 

In introducing this resolution, I made some remarks on the work of the 

s elect committee of the 82d CongresgJ So~that my colleagues may be acquainted 

_ <p .^^wTttrVhat was revealed by this--^elect committee without reading nearly 800 

'] . pages of testimony and documents of the hearings, which has no index, I 

\J, presented the following summary of what was disclosed : 

* First. The evidence presented at the hearings in this case by sworn testimony, 
indicated that at least in one case, even some of the trustees of a supposedly 
legitimate foundation, with over $10 million in assets, were Communists. 

Second. The hearings disclosed that some officers of large and supposedly 
legitimate foundations were Communists. 

Third. Numerous Communists have received grants from foundations char- 
tered by the Congress of the United States, and in some instances these Com- 
munists received grants from more than one foundation. 

Fourth. Foundation grants have been given to many organizations designated 
by the Attorney General of the United States as Communists, or exposed by the 
investigations of committees of the Senate and House as subversive organizations 
subject to Communist Party discipline and control. A primary example of this 

• v is the Institute of Pacific Relations, exposed by the Senate Internal Security 
/' i > Subcommittee as subject to Communist discipline, which has received more than 

^J $2% million from various foundations^ 

"* When introducing House Resolution 217, I listed some of the omissions and 
faults of the work of the select committee of the 82d Congress which must be 
remedied by this Congress.' I feel that .these omissions and faults should again 
be brought to the attention of the House, and that I should not only elaborate 
these faults and omissions, but should point out what the proposed new select 
committee of this Congress intends to do to remedy them. 



The Committee To Investigate Foundations in the 82d Congress had completely 
inadequate .time ami facilities* to do the /job <^ngre#s ;: entrust!ed to **• Tlie 
committee, in its report to the House— House Report 2554 — listed 12 complaints 
and criticisms of foundations in the form of the following questions : 

1. Have foundation funds been diverted, from the purposes established by the 

2. To what extent have foundations been infiltrated by Communists and Com- 
munist sympathizers? 

9.: Have foundation funds been channeled into the hands of subversive indi- 
viduals and organizations ; and if so, to what extend ; . 

4. Have foundations supported or assisted persons, organizations, and projects 
which, if not subversive in the extreme, senserof that word, tend to weaken, or 
discredit the capitalistic system as it exists In tjjie United States and to favor 
Marxist socialism? 

5. Are trustees of foundations absentee landlords who have delegated, their 
duties and responsibilities to paid employees of the foundations? ...... 

6. Do foundations tend to be controlled by interlocking directorates composed 
primarily of Individuals residing in the North and Middle Atlantic states? 

7. Through their power to grant and withhold funds, have foundations tended 
to shift the center of gravity of colleges and other institutions to a point outside 
the institutions themselves? 

8. Have foundations favored Internationalism? 

9. To what extent are foundations spending American monest in foreign 
countries? • 

10. Do foundations recognize that they are in the nature of public trusts and 
are, therefore, accountable to the public, or do they clothe \ their activities In 
secrecy and resent aiid repulse efforts to learn about them and their activities? 
• 11. Are foundations being used as a device by which the control of great cor- 
porations are kept within the family of the foundation's founder or creator* 

12. To what extent are foundations being used as a device for tax avoidance 
and tax evasion? 

Before attempting to answer any of these questions, the report of the com- 
mittee of the 82d Congress immediately points out : 

In dealing with these questions, the committee , recognizes all too clearly 
that which must be apparent to any intelligent observer, namely, that it was 
"allotted Insufficient" time for the magnitude of its task. [Quoted matter 

Obviously, the select committee had insufficient time to investigate fully these 
matters and make seasoned and timely recommendations to the House for 
legislative corrections of those evils which may exist and require serious- 

A special committee of this Congress, in accordance with House Resolution 217,. 
would have sufficient time to undertake extensive research and investigation^ 
for holding public hearings, and to report Its findings and recommendations to- 
Congress. It should be noted that despite its serious limitations, the select 
committee of the 82d Congress disclosed, as indicated by my previous four- 
point summary, substantial, evidence regarding support given to Communists 
by foundations. If considerable evidence can be revealed by an incomplete 
investigation, which had so little time, it can be reasonably expected that a 
new committee, . which has the time to explore the various ramifications of" 
support given to Communists by foundations, will produce startling evidence. 


The select committee in the 82d Congress permitted the officers and trustees, 
of foundations, exercising control over the disbursement of hundreds of millions 
of dollars in tax-exempt funds, to give the excuse, without being challenged 
for their veracity or the reasonableness of their statements, that foundation 
grants were made to Communist organizations and individuals unwittingly 
and through ignorance. A new special committee of the 83d Congress should 
ask these officers and trustees who' testified to give evidence under oath that 
grants to Communists were, in fact, given unwittingly and if precautions arfr 
being taken so that the practice of making grants to subversives would, be- 






The committee to investigate foundations failed to require the officers and 
trustees of foundations who appeared before it as witnesses to give their testi- 
mony under oath. It did not require the representatives of the foundations 
to swear to the truth of the information they furnished the committee in answer 
to its questionnaires. The usual jurat was omitted. As a result of this, 
neither the Congress nor the people know whether these officers and trustees 
were telling the truth. For the sake of tHe foundations, this error should be 
rectified. In fact, under this practice some officers and trustees of foundations 
used the hearings as a soundingboard for their opinions and views rather than 
• giving sworn testimony regarding questionable activities of their foundations. 
The only witnesses I can find who were actually sworn and placed under oath 
were 2 antiOommunists, 2 Department of Justice employees, and Ira Reid 
and Walter Gellhorn. Only § witnesses out of 40 were sworn. In view of 
these circumstances, much of the testimony has no more validity than common 
gossip, and no proper : .investigation has taken place. House Resolution 217, 
to create a special' committee of the 83d Congress, explicitly charges the proposed 
committee to administer the oath so that the serious omission of the former 
committee in this respect would be remedied. 


The committee of the 82d Congress had only time to consider evidence about 
a few foundations, and much of the information it received in answer to its 
questionnaires it did not have time to digest. It did not publish the voluminous 
but revealing answers to its questionnaires, which would have been valuable 
source material for anyone interested in what the foundations are doing. The 
select committee of this Congress would have time to digest, utilize, and publish 
the answers that the foundations have given to the questionnaires. In fact, 
House Resolution 217 specifically charges the Sergeant at Arms of the House 
to obtain the records of the former select committee and to make them available 
to the new committee. 


The select committee of the 82d Congress did not ask the representatives of the 
foundations to explain why they were indulging in propaganda, in view of large 
grants to organizations, projects, and persons which are promoting special inter- 
ests or ideologies. These representatives were also not requested to explain 
activities of foundations which are, in fact, influencing legislation, inasmuch as 
their grants frequently have an outright political objective rather than an educa- 
tional one. 

Foundations, in their statement of policy, say that because of the legal exemp- 
tion from income tax they cannot undertake to support enterprises carrying on 
propaganda or attempting to influence legislation. Such large foundations as 
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Sloan, and Field explicitly make this assertion in 
their published reports. Although foundations contend that they are promot- 
ing education, documentary evidence in my possession raises the question whether 
, some large foundations are not actually engaged in propaganda. 

Large foundations have a tremendous influence on the intellectual and educa- 
tional life of our country. These foundations, possessing huge sums of untaxed 
wealth, seem to be dedicated to promoting specific views on such matters as the 
welfare state, the United Nations, American foreign policy, the nature of the 
American economy, and so on, rather than presenting objective and unbiased 
examination of these issues. Extensive evidence that I have examined shows 
that organizations which are primarily committed to a given ideology have 
received large grants from some big foundations over many years, and in numer- 
ous instances they have received such grants simultaneously from different 

The assets of the large foundations are tax exempt and, therefore, ought to 
be spent on projects and organizations representing the views of all of the people 
and not only of a segment dedicated to a specific ideology. 'Since the activities 
of some of the large foundations appear to be biased in favor of a particular 
ideology, in reality they are indulging in propaganda calculated to influence 
legislation on both domestic and international matters. Under such circum- 
stances, these foundations are violating their charters given to them by the 


United States Congress and are betraying a public trust. I do not mean to imply 
that all foundations and all of their activities are not serving the public welfare. 
Some foundations by some of their grants have made great contributions to 
medical and technological research an$ have improved the health and general 
welfare of the people. But in the realm of the social sciences many f oundations 
have not observed the highest standards of scholarship and ethics, wbich require 
the presentation of only factual and unslanted material. In fact, thewant of 
ethics and the misrepresentations of some foundations are so low that a business 
corporation doing the same thing would be condemned by the Federal Trade 
Commission and held guilty of false advertising. 

The foundations must be investigated in terms of the above-mentioned state-; 
jnents of fact, and should be given an opportunity to try to disprove them. 
The all-important question of the foundation's propaganda activities and at- 
tempts to influence legislation was cbmpletely ignored by the previous com, 
mittee. However, House Resolution $17 explicitly authorizes the new committee 
to determine which foundations are using their resources for political pur-r 
poses, propaganda, and attempts to influence legislation. ' _ 



A very important question, which is vital to the future of the American 
Republic, was never raised at all during the inquiry of the 82d Congress: 
This question is: Why do the pro-American projects find it so dinlcult to get 
grants from some of the foundations? Some large foundations must answer 
questions' such as the following: * 

A. Have they financed studies regarding the excellence of the American 
Constitution, the importance of the Declaration of Independence, and the pr6- 
fundity of the philosophy of the Founding Fathers? And, if not, what Is their 
accuse' for neglecting the study of the basis of the American Republic? : 

B Have they given support to the educational programs of the American 
Legion; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Catholic and Jewish veterans' 
organizatiionsT And, if not, what* is their explanation of the ' fact that tfiey 5 
have been supporting agencies which i are ieft of center and are internationalists, 
and Hot similarly favoring nationalist organizations? 

C. Have they supported studies which are: critical of the welfare state and 
socialism, and demonstrate the merits of the competitive private-property sys- 
tem? 1 Arid*** not, what justification do < they have for such negligence, while* 
they have given numerous grants to persons and organizations which f avo* th§ 
welfare state and socialism? ' ' 

D. Have they given grants to active antfcCommunists and repentant dom- 
munists who' Mave served the United States bravely and at great self-s&criflce! 
by exposing the Communist conspiracy within our borders? And,' if nofc, ; what 
are their reas&ns for. not giving grants to such persons, while they have 
admittedly supported Communists and^ro-Communists? 

These large foundations must be given every opportunity to answer fully 
such questions to the committee of the 83d Congress and to submit evidence 
to the extent they are able, to provethat they have given support to pr(H 
American projects and organizations. Should they not be able to do thfe 
or should their contribution to such, projects arid organizations be very- scanty, 
they must furnish a detailed justification for policies which overlook , the 
preservation of the American Republic. 


The select committee of the 82d Congress did not use a great deal of the docu- 
mentary evidence that was actually in its possession. Much of this extensive 
evidence snowed subversive and tin- American propaganda activities on the part 
of foundations, as well as outright political activities which, attempted to in- 
fluence legislation. It is obviously impossible for me to even summarize this 
voluminous evidence, but I feel that my colleagues should have at least a few 
examples of foundation-flnaoced projects which are not only unseholarly, but 
of such nature as to aid and abet the Communist and; Socialist movement. 
Since time does not permit the full documentation of these examples on the- floor 
of this Chamber, the documentation will be presented as an appendix in a revi- 
sion and extension of my remarks in the Record. 
49720— 54-+pt. 1 3 





Important and extensive evidence concerning subversive and un-American 
propaganda activities of the Ford Foundation, which was available to the com- 
mittee of the 82d Congress, was not utilized. Thus, the Ford Foundation — which 
is the wealthiest and the most influential of all f^undations^-was not actually 
Investigated, ii fact, the hearings on the Ford Foundation constituted merely 
a forum for the trustees and officers of this foundation to make speeches instead 
of answering specific questions regarding the many dubious grants made by 
them. Documentary evidence in my possession raises some serious questions 
regarding some of the officers and activities of the Ford Foundation. Again, 
time does not permit the presentation of this evidence regarding the Ford 
Foundation on the floor of this Chamber, therefore, the evidence^ will be given 
in the extension of my remarks in the Record. 

I have submitted for the consideration of this Chamber ah eight-point analysis 
of the omissions and faults of the work of the select committee of the 82d Congress 
and justification of the vital need to remedy these faults and omissions by a 
special committee of this Congress, to be created by House Resolution 217. 

The matters to which I drew your attention are not only vital for the ftiture 
of our Nation, but have also very practical consequences for the pocketbooks of 
every American taxpayer. Foundations actually operate by Federal subsidy 
through enjoying tax exemptions by authority of section 101 of the Internal 
Reyenue Code. Considerable revenue is lost to the Government by the tax ex- 
emption given to foundations. This revenue must be made up by augmented 
payments on the part of the average American taxpayer. Thus, tax-exempt 
large foundations may be abusing their status at the expense of the American 
taxpayer. This abuse of tax exemption is particularly relevant at this time, 
when we end up the fiscal year over $9 billion in the red and the Secretary of the 
Treasury has to go out and borrow this amount in cash to keep the Government 

Should the investigation disclose that some foundations, because of their activir 
ties, are not entitled to tax exemption, the Federal Government would actually 
obtain additional revenue in taxes, which, in turn, would lessen the tax burden 
of average citizens. I mention this fact because in view of the need for Gov- 
ernment economy, and because Congress is already spending money for .'investi- 
gations, it is important to justify the creation of a new investigating committee 
in terms of what it may do to assist the Government to close loopholes in the 
tax laws. 

The assets of tax-exempt foundations already run into billions. Tax-exempt 
foundations are bound to become more and more important due to the trend of 
putting more and more businesses in such trusts. The present laws governing 
the inheritance and transfer of property are creating a great many tax-exempt 
foundations whose assets are based on corporation securities. In view of this 
trend, the foundations may soon become the dominant ownefcs of tax-free Ameri- 
can business. Under such circumstances, a very large segBient of American 
business will be under the control of a few trustees who will be also spending 
the large tax-exempt funds entrusted to them. Such 'a tremendous concentration 
of control and power would be in itself an unhealthy development and tf«&!t%et 
completely out of control; furthermore, such concentrated power and control 
could easily be abused. This is still another reason why a careful investigation 
of the tax-exempt foundation situation is imperative. 

The questionable activities of foundations are of such vital concern to the 
American people that in recent weeks two committees of the United States 
Senate — the Internal Security Subcommittee and the Committee on Government 
Operations — have announced their intention to look into the activities of founda- 
tions. Thus, it appears that my recommendation made in signing the report of 
the select committee of the 82d Congress was well taken. Howeverj the Internal 
Security Subcommittee is specifically concerned with the subversion, and with 
matters directly affecting the internal security of the United States. Since the 
scope of the committee is limited, it would be impossible for it to investigate 
adequately the propaganda activities of foundations and their attempt to in- 
fluence legislation. These activities are in a sense much more important than 
foundation grants to Communists. Similarly, the jurisdiction of the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities is limited to subversion. 

Moreover, these three committees, as well as the Ways and Means Committee or 
any other standing committee, are too preoccupied with other matters to be able 
to undertake a thorough and complete investigation of the complex and extensive 


activities of numerous foundations. This, of course, is not intended as a reflec- 
tion on the excellent work done by these committees, but is merely a statement 
that only a special committee of the House could do the job properly. Only a 
special committee would have the time, specialized staff, and facilities to under- 
take a thorough inquiry into the complex problems raised by the foundations' 
activities, which require exclusive concentration on the part of an investigating 

body. ^ • 

The House must undertake this task not only because its previous committee 

was not able to complete the job entrusted to it, but also because some founda- 
tions chose to interpret the report of that committee as a mandate for continued 
support of subversive and un-American propaganda activities and for undermining 
the investigative processes of Congress. For instance, the previously mentioned 
Ford Foundation grant makes available $15 million for investigating congres r 
sional methods of inquiries into communism and subversion. On the other 
hand, the House Committee on Un-American Activities has an appropriation 
of only $300,000 ; the Senate Committee on Government Operations, $200,000 ; the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, $200,000. It would seem that because of 
the large sum provided for this task, the Ford Foundation considers the 
investigation of Congress highly important. This intention of the Ford Founda- 
tion constitutes an insult not only to the Congress of theUnited States but the 
American people as well, since this body is the representatives of the American- 
people. It is up to the House to meet such a challenge by establishing a ne\tr 
special committee for a thorough and complete investigation of the Ford and! 
other foundations. ., 

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that House Resolution 217 deserves the 
immediate and serious consideration of all those interested in the safety and 
welfare of our Nation and the dignity and accomplishments of our Congress. 



rA few examples of foundation-financed unscholarly projects which a^-e, in 
fact, pro-Communist and pro-Socialist propaganda are the following : . 
A. The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences is slanted toward the left 

The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, financed by tax-exempt funds, is con,- 
f/^sidered a sort of supreme court of the social sciences. It is the final authority 
" to which appeal is made regarding any question in the field of social sciences. 
The encyclopedia has influenced the thinking of millions of students and other 
persons who have consulted it since the appearance of its consecutive volumes 
during 1930-35. Alvin Johnson, who has been the moving spirit behind the 
encyclopedia and was its associate editor and is now president emeritus of the 
New School for Social Research, estimated that "there are at least half a million 
consultations of the encyclopedia every year, in spite of the fact that it is out 

Y of date." The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Russell Sage Foundations initially 
/ subsidized the encyclopedia to the amount of $600,000. The eventual cost of 

V the encyclopedia was $1,100,000. "- ' 

Although the preface of the encyclopedia says that it endeavored to include 
all important topics in the social sciences, it does not contain an article on the 
American Revolution, while it has articles on the French Revolution and the 
Russian Revolution. 

Johnson, in his book Pioneer's Progress, on pages 310-312, said that two of 
his assistant editors were Socialists and that another editbr was a Communist. 
Johnson, in his great naivete, expected that these editors would not try to slant 
the encyclopedia in favor of communism and socialism. Yet articles dealing 
with subjects on the left were primarily assigned to leftists, while articles 
dealing with subjects on the right were also assigned primarily to leftists. 

The article on bolshevism and Gosplan were written by Maurice Dobb, an 
economist sympathetic to the Soviet point of view. The articles on bureaucracy 
and Lenin were written by the Socialist Harold Laski. The articles on Fabian- 
ism and guild socialism were written by the Socialist G. D. H. Cole. The article 
on communism was written by Max Beer, of the University of Frankfort, who 
was a devoted, wholehearted disciple and enthusiastic biographer of Marx. The 
article on socialism was written by Socialist Oscar Jaszi. Otto Hoetzsca, of 
the University of Berlin, in his article on Government, Soviet Russia, says, 
among other things : \ «— - 





"National autonomy is thus guaranteed in theory and largely in practice as 
well ; there is no legal discrimination between the rates of the Soviet Union * * *. 
The Soviet principle thus results in a parliamentary democracy functioning on 
the basis of indirect representation, but exclusively for the proletariat. Although 
the elections are subject to the pressure of Communist dictatorship, this worker's 
democracy is not entirely a Action." 

The following articles on the subjects dealing with the right were also 
written by leftists : The article on Middleman was written by Maurice Dobb. 
The articles on The Else of Liberalism and Liberty were written by the Socialist 
Harold Laski. The article on Individualism and Capitalism was written by 
Charles Beard, who at the time he wrote this article was a leftist. Capitalism 
was written by Werner Sombart, a former Marxist who became eventually 
affiliated with the Nazis. Laissez Faire was written by the Socialist G. D. H. 
Cole, who refers to laissez faire as "unworkable' and as "theoretically bank- 
rupt." He concludes : 

"As a prejudice, laissez faire survives and still wields great power; as a 
doctrine deserving of theoretical respect, it is dead." 

The fair and scholarly "procedure would have been to assign articles on subjects 
of the left to leftists a:nd the articles on subjects of the right to believers in 
limited government and classical economics. Since this was not done, the 
encyclopedia is to a large extent propaganda for communism and socialism. It is 
indeed regrettable that this encyclopedia, financed by tax-exempt funds, should 
have sponsors which were listed in the preface of the first volume of the en- 
cyclopedia as follows: 

American Anthropological Association 
American Association of Social Workers 
American Economic Association 
American Historical Association 
American Political Science Association 
American Psychological Association 
American Sociological Society 
American Statistical Association 
Association of American Law Schools 
National Education Association 

The student or anyone else consulting the encyclopedia is thus misled, be- 
cause, upon noting the sponsorship, he assumes that the encyclopedia is bound 
to be unbiased and is representative of the highest available scholarship. 

B. The University of Chicago Roundtable is propaganda, not education 

The University of Chicago Round table has received during the last 12 years 
over $600,000 as of 1950, from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The listening 
audience of these Sunday noon roundtable radio broadcasts has been estimated 
by Its staff to be between 5 to 8 million persons. The roundtable claims to be 
an educational program, but this is doubtful. To be a genuinely educational 
program, everyone of the roundtable broadcasts dealing with controversial 
subjects should have participants who are truly representative of each side 
of the problem discussed. However, on the basis of my examination of tran- 
scripts of a great many of these roundtable discussions, it appears that in 
most cases the background and ideology of the participants were so similar 
that no genuine discussion of controversial subjects could take place and no 
fair presentation of all sides of these issues could be expected. And in many 
cases thet ideology of the participants was leftist. 

For example, the August 18, 1946, broadcast dealt with What Is Communism? 
The participants were Milton Mayer, a Socialist journalist, and Arthur M. 
Schlesinger, Jr. of Harvard University and of Americans for Democratic Action, 
and Lynn A. Williams, vice president of the Stewart-Warner Corp. and subse- 
quently vice president of the University of Chicago. Part of the discussion 
said : 

"Mr. Schlesinger. It certainly would appall the editors of Pravda to know 
that you, an American capitalist, are teaching the Communist manifesto to your 

"Mr. Williams* I certainly did not sell it to them, because, try as I would 
to teach them all the merits of what Marx had to say, they would have none of it. 

"Mr. Mayer. * * * socialism, as we see it operating under the labor govern- 
ment in Great Britain, has collective or social ownership of the means of pro- 
iductipn just as communism does. But socialism is still parliamentary, non- 
violent, gradualist, democratic, progressive." 


In view of the opinion of participants of the broadcast, where is the capitalist, 
anti-Communist and anti-Socialist viewpoint? 

The March 14, 1948, broadcast, entitled "The Communist Manifesto, 1848 to 
1948," had the following participants : Herman Finer, a British Socialist, Abram 
Harris of the University of Chicago, and Malcolm Sharp, professor of law at the 
University of Chicago, who was associate attorney for the Rosenbergs, executed 
Communist spies, has numerous Communist-front affiliations, and was quoted 
by the Chicago Maroon as saying that Communist professors should not only 
be hired, but should be sought after. 

The December 17, 1950, broadcast, entitled "Freedom in an Age of Danger," 
had the following participants : Robert Horn, William R. Ming, Jr., and Louis 
Wirth, all of the University of Chicago. All three participants criticized the 
Attorney General's list of Communist organizations and the MeCarran Internal 
Security Act. Since no one who recognized the patriotic purpose of this list or 
of the act participated in the program, it was definitely unbalanced and slanted 
to the left. 

The June 29, 1952, broadcast, a discussion of how to deal with Communist 
subversion, had as participants Daniel Bell of Columbia University, Dwight 
MacDonald, a journalist, and Quincy Wright of the University of Chicago. Mac- 
Donald attacked the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, Sen- 
ators McCarthy and MeCarran, and the Smith Act Bell also attacked the Smith 
Act. Wright attacked Senator McCarthy and the MeCarran committee. No 
one participated in the program who had anything to say in favor of Senators 
McCarthy and MeCarran, the Smith Act, or the Attorney General's list of sub- 
versive organizations. 

I also found that on such controversial issues as the human-rights program of 
the United Nations, American foreign policy, and political and economic ques- 
tions, little chance was given to conservative and nationalist views. Had the 
ideological balance of the program's participants alternated from week to week, 
we would not be forced to the suspicion that this was a propaganda sounding 
C. The dtizenshi>p education project is slanted toward the left 

Between 1949 and 1951, the Carnegie Corp. has granted to the Teacher's Col- 
lege of Columbia University for its citizenship-education project the sum of 
$1,417,550. Examination of this project indicates that, like the Encyclopedia 
of the Social Sciences and the University of Chicago roundtable broadcasts, it 
is slanted toward the left. One of the main accomplishments of the citizenship 
education project was a card file of 1,046 index cards which are sold to high 
schools for use of civics 1 teachers. Each of the cards contains a summary and 
annotation of a book or pamphlet on political and social issues for the teacher's 
guidance in presenting a social problem to a class. 

Examination of the 1950 card file shows that the great majority of books 
and other items selected for summary and annotation are leftist, liberal, and 
internationalist in their viewpoint and only a v few are conservative and national- 
ist in their outlook. Actually there are only about 2 dozen cards which refer 
to material that is conservative in outlook — this is a very small percentage out 
of over 1,000 cards. Thus, the teacher who uses this card file has very few 
items to contrast against the liberal, leftwing, and internationalist items in the 

In addition, leftist materials in the card file are most often annotated as 
"factual," and the few rightist materials are most often annotated as "opinion- 
ated." For example, card No. 554 refers to We Are the Government, by Biting 
and Gossett, and describes it as "factual, entertaining, descriptive, illustrative," 
while the book in reality is pro-Communist. Card No. 249 refers to a Mask for 
Privilege, by Carey McWilliams, and is described as "historical, descriptive." 
McWilliams is a notorious Communist. Card No. 901 refers to Building for 
Peace at Home and Abroad, by Maxwell Stewart, and is described as "factual, 
dramatic." Stewart has been named as a Communist. Card No. 1020 refers 
to The American, by Howard Fast, another notorious Communist who actually 
went to jail for contempt of this House, and is described as "historical, 

The following are examples of how conservative works are torn down by the 
annotations: Card No. 809 refers to the Road to Serfdom, by Frederick A. 
Hayek, and is described as "factual, strongly opinionated, logical." Card No. 730 
refers to Be Glad You're a Real Liberal, by Earl Bunting, diector of the National 
Association of Manufacturers, and is described as "opinionated, biased, descrip- 

i~—-^> E. 



tive." While the works of Communists and fellow travelers are often referred 
to as factual, this pamphlet by Bunting is called opinionated. In addition, on 
the card, where the summary is given, the synopsis starts out by saying : 

"Meaning of the word 'liberal' {as defined by the National Association of 

While Communists and fellow travelers are not identified as such, this item 
is clearly labeled as to its political orientation. I shudder to think about the 
fate of those thousands of schoolchildren who are given this kind of misleading 
instruction, financed by a tax-exempt foundation. 

D. The public affairs pamphlets edited by a Communist 

The public affairs pamphlets have received support in the amounts of several 
hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. These 
pamphlets are prominently displayed and sold in many public libraries and are 
frequently used in high schools. Many hundreds of thousands of copies of these 
pamphlets are distributed annually. For numerous years Maxwell S. Stewart 
has been the editor of the public affairs pamphlets, which are published by the 
public affairs committee. He has been an associate editor of the Moscow News, 
and has taught in Moscow, Dr. Louis F. Budenz has identified Stewart as a 
member of the Communist Party in sworn testimony given before the McCarran 

The House Military Subcommittee charged in 1949 that the publications of the 
Public Affairs Committee, Inc., "are recommended by the Affiliated Schools for 
Workers" — Communist— "and sold by Communist bookstores." George Seldes, 
in his pro-Communist publication called In Fact, offered a free public affairs 
pamphlet as a bonus for renewal subscription for In Fact. Seldes said, in part : 
■ "These pamphlets prepared by the Public Affairs Committee are, though popu- 
larly written, authoritative. You will find them an excellent source for depend- 
able information," 

One of the public affairs pamphlets, entitled "The Races of Mankind," by Ruth 
Benedict and Gene Weltfish. published in 1943, was banned by the USO and the 
Army. Ruth Benedict had Communist-front organization affiliations, and re- 
cently Weltfish refused to answer the Question whether she has been a Commu- 
nist, before a Senate committee. Maxwell Stewart has written numerous pam- 
phlets, such as Industrial Price Policy, which is slanted toward the left; the 
American Way, which casts grave doubt on the value of the free-enterprise sys- 
tem ; Income and Economic Progress, which follows a similar line of argument ; 
and the Negro in America, in which he lauds such undoubted Communists as 
Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, and W. E. B. DuBois, and does not consider 
anti-Communist Negroes as outstanding Negroes. Charles Edward Amory Wins- 
low's pamphlet, Health Care for Americans, was recommended as supplementary 
reading in the Jefferson School of Social Science. Carey McWilliams, who has 
been named a Communist, also write such pamphlets as Small Farm and Big 
Farm, What About Our Japanese-Americans. Louis Adamic, an admitted Com- 

unist, wrote a pamphlet called America and the Refugees. 

E. The NBA and PEA propagandize for socialism 
The National Education Association and the Progressive Education Associa- 
tion have received major contributions from the General Education Board, one 
of the foundations dispersing Rockefeller tax-exempt money. The National 
Education Association and Progressive Education Association are very important 
because through them the foundations are reaching right into the public 
schools and are affecting millions of schoolchildren./ By 1947, some $8 million 
was spent by the General Education Board on new educational goals and pro- 
cedures, and among others the National Education Association and Progressive 
Education Association were generously supported in educational reorganization 
and experimentation. During the 1930's these 2 educational organizations re, 
ceived particularly large sums of money, and by 1940 the National Education 
Association received a total of $456,100 and the Progressive Education Associa- 
tion a total of $1,635,941. Just what kind of educational reorganization and 
experimentation was supported by the tax-exempt funds of the General Educa- 
tion Board? 

The Progressive Education Association — PEA — in its official magazine called 
Progressive Education, on page 257 of the November 1947 issue, had a lead arti- 
cle by John J. DeBoer, president, American Education Fellowship— the American 
^Education Fellowship is the present name of the PEA. DeBoer has extensive 
Communist-front affiliations. In his lead article, DeBoer said that the 1947 con- 


vention of the American Education Fellowship — AEF — had such speakers as 
Langston Hughes and W. E. B. J>uBois, whose affiliation with communism has 
already been indicated, and Curtis McDougall, who was a senatorial candidate 
on the Communist-dominated Wallace-Taylor-Kremlin ticket. 

In the same magazine, on page 258, there is an article by Theodore Brameld, 
entitled "A New Policy for AEF." This article is a resolution for the American 
Education Fellowship, which was adopted at the 1947 convention to which 
DeBoer referred. The platform proposed by Brameld says on page 260 of the 

"The two great constructive purposes which should now govern the American 
Education Fellowship follow directly from this brief analysis. They are: 

"I. To channel the energies of education toward the reconstruction of the 
economic system, a system which should be geared with the increasing socializa- 
tions and public controls now developing in England, Sweden, New Zealand, 
and other countries ; a system in which national and international planning of 
production and distribution replaces the chaotic planlessness of traditional free 
enterprise ; * * * a system in which the interests, wants, and needs of the 
"consumer dominate those of the producer ; a system in which natural resources, 
such as coal and iron ore, are owned and controlled by the people ; a system in 
which public corporations replace monopolistic enterprises and privately owned 
'public' utilities. * * * 

"II. To channel the energies of education toward the establishment of genuine 
international authority in all crucial issues affecting peace and security; * * * 
an order in which international economic planning of trade, resources, labor dis- 
tribution and standards, is practiced, parallel with the best standards of individ-. 
ual A&k%m& * * * an order in which world citizenship thus assumes at least 
equal status with national citizenship." 

Is this an educational program or is it propogahda in favor of socialism 
and world government ? ' 

The id(eoU2Bj_jiLJJi&.ISaliojQal E ducation Association was stated in 1934 by 
WillardnTGivens, who attibaT^ime^wSs superinteifdent of schools at Oakland, ^ 
Calif., and subsequently become executive secretary of the NBA, a post which % / 
he held for 18 years. Under the title "Education for the New America," in ^ 
the Proceedings of the 72d Annual Meeting of the NBA, Givens said in 1934; 

"This report comes directly from the thinking together of more thha 1,000 
members of the department of superintendents (school superintendents). * * * 

"A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including 
the owners, must be subjected to a large amount of social control. A large sec- 
tion of our discussion group, accepting the conclusions of distinguished students, 
maintain that in our fragile, interdependent society, the credit agencies, the y 

basic industries, and utilities cannot be centrally planned and operated under v 
private ownership. 

"Hence they will join in creating a swift nationwide campaign of adult educa- 
tion which will support President Roosevelt in taking these over and operating 
them at full capacity as a unified national system in the interests of all of the 

Is this an educational program or is it propaganda in favor of socialism? And 
why should the General Education Board, whose funds came from Rockefeller, 
who made his money under the free-enterprise system, support such propaganda? 

In 1940 the General Education Board gave $17,500 to the National Associa- 
tion of Secondary School Principals and the National Council for the Social 
Studies, both divisions of the National Education Association, to prepare several 
teaching units which would provide teachers with resource material on social 
problems. One of these units was prepared by Oscar Lange and Abba P. Lerner 
and was called the American Way of Business. Both Lange and Lerner have 
been socialists for a long time, and Lange eventually renounced his American 
citizenship in order to become the Kremlin's Ambassador for Communist Poland 
to the United Nations. The American Way of Business, which was published 
by the National Education Association, is not an analysis of American business, 
but a propaganda tract for communism, Why should tax-exempt funds be 
used to enable two Socialists to write a propaganda piece on American businesa 

I also want to raise the significant question whether it is a coincidence that 
during the time when the National Education Association and the Progressive 
Education Association received particularly large grants and the American Way 
of Business was financed, the director for General Education, the division of the 


General Education Board under which these grants were made, was Robert J. 
Havighurst, who has extensive affiliations with Communist fronts. 

The five examples I have given of the use of tax-exempt funds are just indi- 
cations of the kind of problems which a committee of the 83d Congress should 
thoroughly explore. These few examples are in my mind sufficient to justify 
a thorough inquiry. These examples do not involve just a grant of a few thou- 
sand dollars to a person who happens to be a Communist, but involve giving 
millions of dollars for many years to pro-Socialist and pro-Communist prop- 
aganda projects that are vitally affecting our children in our schools and have 
a tremendous influence over the public mind. 



To illustrate the dubious staff and the many subversive and propaganda 
activities of the Ford Foundation, I offer the following examples from the 
extensive documentary evidence which I have in my possession : 

1. Dubious staff of Ford Foundation 

A. The record of Messrs. Berelson and Moseley: Bernard Berelson is the 
director of the Ford Foundation's Behavioral Sciences Division, which has just 
been allotted $3,500,000 for the creation of a center for advanced study in be- 
havioral sciences, which will consider social relations in human behavior. Berel- 
son, while on the faculty of the University of Chicago, served on a committee to 
welcome the Bed dean of Canterbury, the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, 
world renowned apologist for communism who sports a Soviet decoration for his 
work in behalf of his Kremlin masters. The welcoming committee for the Red 
dean of Canterbury was organized under the auspices of the National Council 
of American-Soviet Friendship, an agency which has been cited as subversive and 
Communist by the Attorney. General of the United States. 

The East European fund was established by the Ford Foundation, is financed 
by it and deals with issues relating to the Soviet Union and its European satel- 
lites, and particularly with the settlement and adjustment of S6viet refugees 
who have come to the United States. The president of this fund is Philip E. 
Moseley, who is also director of the Russian Institute at Columbia University. 
Some years ago Professor Moseley made the following evaluation of the Soviet 
Union in a pamphlet he wrote for the Foreign Policy Association, also sup- 
ported by foundations : 

"Over the long run, great numbers of people will judge both the Soviet and 
American systems, not by how much individual freedom they preserve but by how 
much they contribute, in freedom or without it, to develop a better livelihood and 
a greater feeling of social fulfillment." 

Garet Garett, editor of American Affairs, said that this is straight Communist 
Party ideology : 

"It means only that pure Communist ideology may be thus imparted by Co- 
lumbia University's Russian Institute through the Foreign Policy Association." 

Philip O. Jessup and Ernest J. Simmons are members of the administrative 
board of the Russian Institute at Columbia University, which is headed by 
Moseley. Professor Simmons is the editor of a book entitled "U. S. S. R.," which 
grew out of studies at Cornell University that were financed by the Rockefeller 
Foundation. At least 15 of the 20 contributors of this symposium edited by 
Simmons are pro-Soviet and none of the other 5 has ever been known as critics 
of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Professor Simmons has affiliations with Com- 
munist fronts. 

B. The record of Mr. Gladieux : Another officer of the Ford Foundation is 
Bernard Louis Gladieux, former secretary to and protege of Henry Wallace. 
Gladieux entered Federal service in 1938 in Chicago with the Federal Works 
Agency, transferred to the Labor Department, Wage and Hour Administration, 
from there to the Bureau of the Budget, then to War Production Board, leaving 
the WPB on November 23, 1944, to go with UNRRA. On March 2, 1945, Henry 
Wallace was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce, and on April 30, 1945, he named 
Bernard L. Gladieux as his executive assistant. Gladieux remained in the 
Department of Commerce until October 1, 1951, when he was appointed as an 
officer of the Ford Foundation in charge of the New York office and as assistant 
to the president of the Ford Foundation. 

I have been advised by a reliable and responsible source that Bernard L. 
Gladieux, while in Government service in Washington, had in addition to official 


association in the ordinary course of business, social contacts with the following 
persons : William W. Remington, Michael J. Lee, Harry Samuel Magdoff, Philip 
M. Hauser. MagdofE was identified before a committee of the House in 1948 as a 
member of a Soviet spy ring. He recently appeared before the Senate Internal 
Security Committee and dived behind the fifth amendment when asked the $64 
question. William W. Remington is in jail serving a term for denying that he 
was a Communist Party member while in the secret cell of Communists in the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. Michael J. Lee was fired from the Department 
of Commerce for disloyalty. Dr. Philip M. Hauser, a former professor at the 
University of Chicago, who wrote pro-Russian speeches for Henry Wallace, has 
not as yet been called as a witness by the committees who have investigated 
him and his activities. 

Advice was also furnished to me that no investigation of Bernard L. Gladieux' 
loyalty had even been requested or made while he was in Federal service. But 
a review of hearings held pursuant to Senate Resolution 230, 81st Congress, 2d 
session, by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, certainly indicated that Gladieux' loyalty should have been investi- 
gated. A Member of the Senate took the witness stand before the committee and, 
after first being duly sworn as a witness, testified as follows : 

"I understand that one Bernard L. Gladieux, of the Secretary's office, who is a 
protege of Henry Wallace, has exercised the power of nullifying decisions of the 
so-called loyalty board. In other words, if it found he was cleared of actual 
disloyalty but recommended as a poor security risk, not a good security risk, then 
someone overruled that finding." 

Now, I am informed that it could be, probably is, Mr. Gladieux. 

Mr. Gladieux never appeared before the Senate committee to answer the 
changes against him which were made on March 28, 30, and April 4, 1950. How- 
ever, Mr. Gladieux was a witness on February 27, 1950, before a House Appro- 
priations Subcommittee, of which the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rooney, 
was chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Flood, the gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Preston, the late Hon. Karl Stefan, of Nebraska, and the 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Cliff Clevenger, were members. 

At page 2341 the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney) stated : 

"The story this year is that the Department of Commerce has taken the place 
of the State Department; that the Department of Commerce is the outfit in 
Government which is honeycombed with people belonging to the Communist 

Mr. Flood, on page 2346, made the following statement : 

"You are executive assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and after 2 hours 
of examination and cross-examination here I have not the faintest idea of your 
personal attitude toward this kind of case, which is a borderline case, or frankly 
on a case where anything else is concerned. I am very unhappy about your own 
point of view. Do you appreciate that?" 

On page 2362, Mr. Gladieux, as the hearings were about to close, made a lengthy 
statement, to which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney), on page 2363, 
replied as follows : 

"That is all so much nice language. To me it does not mean a thing. You 
have come up here this afternoon to acquaint us with the situation in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce. The results have been nil. We have not had the cooperation 
from you that we have had from the Department of State. 

"You refused to take us into your confidence with regard to these things, and 
I have tried to handle it in an amicable way so that if questions were raised 
on the floor we might have the answers to them. You have reacted in the other 
direction, away from us. So now we are far apart, and we will have to stay 
that way. There is nothing that I can see that we can do about it." 

Senator Karl Mundt, speaking before the Senate, made the remark that — 

"In 1950 the junior Senator from Nevada (Mr. Malone) rose on this floor 
to suggest that certain persons in the Department of Commerce were dangerous 
security risks." 

Senator Mundt went on to say that a committee was created to investigate 
the charges made by Senator Malone, but that "after 3 or 4 days' hearing, Secre- 
tary of Commerce Sawyer rushed up to the Hill and agreed to fire the two men 
whom I had drawn into the net— Lee and Remington — if the hearing could be 
Stopped." Continuing, Senator Mundt stated : 

"I did not hear that agreement, but I know it was made, because I could never 
get the committee together again. 

"I was really after Mr. Gladieux, secretary to the Secretary of Commerce, and 


Mi*. Blaisdell, who was and had been during the troublesome* period in China 
in charge of that matter under my attack. They, Mr. Gladieux and Mr. Blais- 
dell, subsequently quit for reasons best known to themselves— they knew we 
were on their trail. 

"I believe that is why they quit." 

Is it possible that the trustees of this huge foundation never made any investi- 
gation of Mr. Gladiuex or checked with the FBI to determine his loyalty to his 

B. The record of Robert Maynard Hutchins : The keyman in the Ford Founda- 
tion is Robert M. Hutchins, formerly chancellor of the University of Chicago. 
His formal position with the Ford Foundation is that of associate director, but, 
in effect, he has been running the foundation. While Hoffman was the presi- 
dent, Hutchins' prominent position was made possible by the fact that Hoffman 
considers Hutchins as the greatest living educator and literally worships him. 
With the resignation of Hoffman as president of the foundation, H. Rowan 
Gaither, a San Francisco attorney, became president of the foundation. But 
Gaither is a mere figurehead and Hutchins is still running the foundation. 
Gaither has accepted the presidency only for a year, and thus Hutchins may yet 
become the- formal head of the organization. But even without such a formal 
presidency, in view of the facts stated above, Hutchins in effect runs the Ford 

In his capacity as the policymaker of the Ford Foundation, Hutchins possesses 
a completely unprecedented financial power over education, the humanities, and 
the social sciences. By giving or withholding grants, Hutchins is in position 
to insinuate his views into any aspect of American intellectual life. Therefore, 
it is essential to inquire about Hutchins' views and his record concerning the 
Communist menace. 

Testifying in 1949 under oath before the Illinois Seditious Activities Investiga- 
tion Commission inquiry into subversive activities at the University of Chicago, 
Hutchins admitted that he was a sponsor of the October 1948 meeting of the 
bureau on academic freedom of the National Council of Arts, SGi<ewces, and 

Regarding the Methodist Federation of Social Action, Hutchins has said : 

"Believe you are advancing the cause of true Americanism." 

The first page of the publication of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, 
where this quotation appears, asserts that the federation rejects the profit motive 
and favors a classless society. Does Hutchins think that such an ideology con- 
stitutes true Americanism? 

The University of Chicago, under Hutchins' administration, has distinguished 
itself as the only institution of higher learning in America which has been in- 
vestigated five times for immoral or subversive activities. These investigations 
are : First, Illinois State Senate inquiry, 1935 ; second, University of Chicago 
alumni committee, 1947-48 ; third, University of Chicago board of trustees, 
1948 ; fourth, Illinois Seditious Activities Investigation Commission, March- 
June 1949 ; fifth, investigation and subsequent report to the Illinois Legislature 
by State Representative G. William Horsley, Springfield, 1949. The first investi- 
gation was a whitewash ; the second requested the resignation of Hutchins ; the 
third held its deliberations in secret ; and the fourth and fifth did not clear 
the university. Both the majority report of the Illinois Seditious Activities 
Commission and the independent report of Representative Horsley condemned the 
university's administration severely and asked the legislature to deny tax 

At the hearings of the seditious activities commission of the Illinois Legislature 
at the 1949 investigation of the University of Chicago, Hutchins, after being 
sworn in, testified as follows : 

"The subpena which I have received summons me to testify concerning sub- 
versive activities at the University of Chicago. This is a leading question, and 
the answer is assumed in the question. I cannot testify concerning subversive 
activities at the University of Chicago because there are none." 

At the same hearings, Hutchins was asked the following question and made the 
following response: 

"Question. The records which I shall present through other witnesses show, in 
summary, that some sixty-odd persons listed in the latest available directory of 
the University of Chicago as professors or professors emeritus have been affili- 
ated with 135 Communist-front organizations in 465 separate affiliations. Is 
that not something for which the university might well be alarmed? 

"Answer. I don't see why." 


' * 

In the course of the same investigation it was disclosed that there were Conv 
munist and pro-Communist student organizations on Hutching' campus. The 
student Communist club was freely admitted by Chancellor Hutchins, who said 
"the club has not sought to subvert the government of this State." !_ 

In his testimony before the same investigation, Hutchins stated that "It is 
not yet established that it is subversive to be a Communist." 

It must be noted that this testimony was given more than a year after the^ 
start of the Berlin airlift. 

At the same investigation Hutchins was asked the following question to which 
he made the following response : 

"Question. Do you consider that the Communist Party in the United States; 
comes within the scope of a clear and present danger? 

"Answer. I don't think so." 

Hutchins was also asked : "Are you aware that the Communist-front organiza- 
tion is a part of the Communist movement, just as much as' the party itself ? 

"No." ' 

Then he was asked : "You haven't attempted to make a study of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

"No, I haven't," Hutchins replied. 

He was also asked : "Is there any doubt that the Communist Party is a con? 
spiratorial fifth column operated in the interest of a foreign state? 

"I am not instructed on this subject," Hutchins answered. 

Such was the attitude of Hutchins toward communism after the start of the 
Berlin airlift, and at a time when the United States was spending billions of 
dollars abroad to fight communism. 

On June 25, 1951, the Daily Worker, on page 2 under the headline "Ford 
Foundation Head Joins Blast at High Cost 0. K. for Smith Act," the following 
item appeared under a Chicago dateline of June 24: 

"Prof. Robert M. Hutchins, former chancellor of the University of Chicago 
and now associate director of the Ford Foundation, joined with Osmond K. 
Fraenkel, noted New York attorney, opposing the Supreme Court decision up- 
holding the conviction of the 11 convicted Communist Party leaders. Dr. 
Hutchins said that the majority decision indicates that we are at last rap 
against a great crisis in this country. He spoke of the ruling as a complete 
reversal of earlier precedents set by the high Court * * *. • Speaking here at an 
American Civil Liberties Union meeting in his honor, Dr. Hutchins declared 
that 'it may now become more difficult for us to take some of the positions 
we have in the past.' He referred to his stated willingness to hire Communists 
as university professors. Hutchins told the Illinois Legislature that he would 
even take back into the university faculty Oscar P. Lange, who, as I pointed 
out before, renounced his American citizenship to become Moscow's Ambassador 
for Communist Poland to the United Nations. 'We may even have to decide 
whether we must violate the law in order to remain in conformity with our 
convictions,' he said." 

Hutchins wrote the introduction to a book entitled "Character Assassination," 
published in 1950, which was written by Jerome Davis, who has been in more 
than 40 Communist-front organizations. Hutchins also wrote the foreword 
to a book entitled "Political and Civil Rights in the United States," published 
in 1953 by Thomas I. Emerson and David Haber. Louis Budenz, testifying 
under oath, named Emerson as a member of the Communist Party, a charge 
which Emerson denied. But Emerson has been in a large number of Communst 
fronts and was head of the Communist-controlled National Lawyers Guild, the 
legal arm of the Communist Party in the United States. There is no doubt 
that the National Lawyers Guild is a subversive organization, and it has been 
cited officially as much. 

Hutchins, whose attitudes I have illustrated, is the key man in the Ford 
Foundation, which owns outright some 374,000 shares of stock of the 400,000 
shares of stock in the Ford Motor Co., one of the biggest industrial giants in the 
whole world. The stockholdings, according to Henry Ford II, amount to 90 
percent of the outstanding stock of the Ford Motor Co. Recently the New York 
Times magazine pointed out that the Ford Foundation is the "virtual owner of 
the gigantic Ford Motor Co." According to Paul Hoffman, then president of the 
Ford Foundation, the Ford Foundation had made grants of $72 million in 
2 years, 1951-52. 

So it may readily be seen that a grant of $15 million, to protect the civil 
liberties of Communists and to investigate the Congress of the United States, 
from the tax-exempt millions of the income from the stock of the late Henry 


Ford, a man of sterling character and unblemished reputation whose industrial 
genius helped build America, and whose faith in our institutions and our 
American way of life was never shaken, is really peanuts to the Ford Founda- 
tion which deals out grants with a lavish hand, both to the left and the right, 
mostly left. Here is the last of the great American industrial fortunes, 
amassed in a competitive, free market place in the last 50 years, being used to 
undermine and subvert our institutions, $15 million being set aside to investigate 
the Congress of the United States. What a sad tribute to the man we all 
respected and loved, Henry Ford. He was a symbol of outstanding common- 
sense and public virtue. Never would he have approved such tactics by the 
Ford Foundation, to which he left his fortune estimated at over a half-billion 
dollars in stock in the Ford Motor Co., the earnings of which go directly into 
the tax-exempt Ford Foundation. 

In view of the attitude of Hutching toward communism, it is not at all 
surprising that the Ford Foundation has made some highly dubious grants. 
I offer the following examples for your consideration : 

#. Ford Foundation's support of communism and Socialist propaganda 

A. Grant to aid Communists and to discredit their investigation : I have already 
referred to the $15 million grant to investigate the Congress of the United States 
and its committees. In a recent broadcast Eric Sevareid, a CBS commentator 
who has long opposed congressional investigations of communism, and openly 
defended John Stewart Service, 1 of the 6 persons arrested by the FBI in the 
Amerasia case, enthusiastically praised this $15 million fund and called Hutch- 
ins "the driving spirit behind this new" There can be no question that 
Hutchins is behind this new Ford Foundation project, for he has consistently 
expressed his concern for the civil liberties of Communists. Since we know 
Hutchins' attitude toward communism and we know that his conception of civil 
liberties is similar to that of the Communists, we can be sure that the new Ford 
Foundation project will aid the Communist conspiracy and will try to discredit 
all those who fight it. This will undoubtedly happen, for the chairman and the 
president of the new Ford Foundation project are mere figureheads and fronts 
and Hutchins is dominating the project. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Jackson, said on this floor that "Needless 
to state, the investigations proposed by the Ford Foundation will be greeted with 
enthusiastic approval from Shanghai to Bast Berlin. The approval will not be 
given voice by the silent millions of captive peoples, but by the commissars and 
their agents." 

He aptly characterized this 15 million project by saying that it "will serve 
only to lend additional aid and comfort to the Communist Party." The Ameri- 
can Legion's newsletter, the Firing Line, stated that this project is regarded by 
many anti-Communists as "a huge slush fund for a full-scale war on all organiza- 
tions and individuals who have ever exposed and fought Communists." 

In passing, it should be pointed out that the Ford Foundation's effort to dis- 
credit legislative inquiries into Communists activities is not unique inasmuch as 
the Rockefeller Foundation has undertaken, on a smaller scale, a project with 
the same intention. In 1947 the Rockefeller Foundation made a grant of 
$110,000 to Cornell University to conduct a study on civil liberties and the con- 
trol of subversive activities. This project resulted in the publication of a series 
of books attacking legislative investigations of Communists activities, volumes 
full of typical pro-Communist distortion. One of the authors of these volumes 
was Prof. Walter Gellhorn, of Columbia University, who has Communist-front 
affiliations and who has explicitly demanded the abolition of the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities. Recently Gellhorn was identified, in testi- 
mony given under oath, as a member of the Communist Party, a charge which he 

It should also be pointed out that at least one foundation has used its funds 
not only to discredit the investigation of Communists, but to support directly 
Communists fronts and to aid Communists on trial. 

On September 24, 1942, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Dies], in a speech in 
the House, showed that the Robert Marshall Foundation of New York was sup- 
porting Comjnunist fronts and Communist causes, and he listed the actual 
disbursements made from the estate of the late Robert Marshall, a Red New 
Dealer from the Department of Agriculture, who left an estate of over a mil- 
lion and a half dollars to the foundation and named trustees, most of whom 
were radicals and Reds. This is the same foundation which the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Velde], in a speech in the House on October 17, 1951, exposed 


as being the provided of the sum of $20,000 in attorney fees to Joe Raiih, chair- 
man of the executive committee of Americans for Democratic Action and at- 
torney for the convicted perjurer and Soviet spy, William Walter Remington; 
who is" now in jail serving time for betraying his country in wartime and falsely 
denying Communist Party membership while in a secret cell of the Communist 
Party in the Tennessee Valley Authority. One of the trustees of the Robert 
Marshall/ Foundation was and is Edwin S. Smith. This is the same Smith that 
President, Roosevelt put on the National Labor Relations Board. On May 21, 
1953, this same Edwin S. Smith was summoned before the Senate Internal Se- 
curity Subcommittee, and when asked if he was a Communist, he immediately 
dived behind the fifth amendment and claimed privilege. 

B, Arthur Sehlesinger, Jr., of Americans for Democratic Action employed *y 
Ford Foundation ; According to. page 34 of the 1951 AwwaJ* Report of £hs FUpd" 
for Adult Education, a subsidiary of the Ford Foundation, the TV-Radio Work- 
shop, administered by the fund for adult education, hired Arthur Sehlesinger, 
Jr., as commentator for a series of 12 weekly broadcasts. Sehlesinger, of course, 
is a big shot in the ADA. The following public statements by Sehlesinger are 
worthy of note : 

In 1946 Sehlesinger wrote that the present system in the United States makes 
"even freedom-loving Americans look wistfully at Russia." 

On December 11, 1949, on page 3 of the New York Times, Sehlesinger said : 

"I happen to believe that the Communist Party should be granted freedom of 
political action and that Communists should be allowed to teach in universities, 
so long as they do not disqualify themselves by intellectual distortions in the 

On August 18, 1946, on a University of Chicago Round Table broadcast en- 
titled "What Is Communism?" Sehlesinger said: 

"Surely the class struggle is going on in America. I would agree completely 
with the Communists on that." 

Sehlesinger was then asked: 

"Do you mean that capitalism is dead everywhere except in the United States?" 

He replied : "It is dead." 

In answer to the question, "What did it die of?"', he said : 

"It died of itself. There is much to what the Marxists used to say about 
capitalism containing the 'seeds of its own destruction'," 

Sehlesinger, in a public-affairs pamphlet of 1950, entitled "What About Com- 
munism?" criticized the Committee on Un-American Activities and said that it 
was more interested in slandering and smearing liberals than in exposing real 
Communists, Be said.: 

"The methods of the witchhunt, especially when employed from the ambush 
of congressional immunity, are sometimes almost as dangerous to democracy 
as the methods of the Communists themselves." 

He also said : 

"With the formation of Americans for Democratic Action, liberals who believed 
in a non-Communist left acquired an organization of their own." 

As the gentleman from California [Mr. Jackson] pointed out concerning the 
grant of $15 million to investigate the House and Senate, the money might 
have been better spent by the Ford Foundation to help ferret out and expose 
the subversion in our schools and our universities, or the Ford Foundation might 
have ddne something about the Ford plants in the Detroit area which the gentle- 
man from California described as a seething mass of Communist conspiracy and 
intrigue, where thousands of unsuspecting and loyal American workers were 
being duped and held in a tight grip by the Communist leadership of Local 600 
of the United Automobile Workers of America. Local 600 is the largest labor 
union in the world and has, or did have, some 60,000 members, and still it is 
classified as just one local union of the United Automobile Workers of America. 

In February, March, and April, 1952, the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities held open public hearings in Detroit, and witness after witness took 
the stand and testified under oath as to the Communist domination and control 
of local 600 by the Kremlin. So the committee issued subpenas for the officers 
of local 600 at the Ford plants and brought them before the committee and 
asked them if they were Communists. Not a single officer of local 600 answered 
the question. They took refuge in the fifth amendment, refusing to answer on 
the grounds to do so would incriminate them. Yet they still work for FopL 

Now you would think that when a congressional committee, a eomiiii«t**e df. 
this House, goes to Detroit to hold hearings regarding Communists in the Ford 
plants that the Ford Motor Co. would assist. Exactly the opposite was true. Not 



only did they offer the committee no assistance, but when requested to cooperate 
With the committee in ferreting out and exposing these agents of the Kremlin 
in the Ford plants, they refused. 

The House Committee on Un-American Activities got absolutely no help from 
tyie Ford Motor Co., but, even worse, the national leadership of the United Auto- 
mobile Workers headed by Walter Reuther, now president of the CIO, was no 
better off. They finally had to pass an amendment to the union constitution 
at the national convention, held in Atlantic City recently, to authorize the 
national officers to remove these Communists from the domination and control 
of local 600. 

So, instead of the Ford Foundation voting $15 million to investigate Congress, 
they might well clean up their own backyard first, their plants and the Ford 
Foundation, too. 

B. Grant to a Communist : Another example of the kind of grants the Ford 
Foundation makes was revealed in the testimony of William M. Canning, a 
f6rmer member of the faculty of the City College and of Xavier University, who 
said under oath at the hearings of the Internal Security Subcommittee that 
Moses Finkelstein, a City College teacher and later a professor at Rutgers Uni- 
versity, under the name of Finley, was a member of the Communist Party and 
that recently this man received a grant from the Ford Foundation. 

C. Grant to an organization supposedly controlled by a Communist: I have 
been advised by a reliable source that an organization which has received 
substantial grants not only from the Ford Foundation, but also from the Car- 
negie Corp., is supposed to be dominated by a Communist who dictates the 
policy of the organization. It would be unfair for me to provide specific infor- 
mation on this matter until witnesses are put on the stand to give their testi- 
mony under oath. 

D. Grant to a person who wants to abolish the United States : Another dubi- 
ous grant of a different character was made*to Mortimer Adler, who received 
$600,000 from the Ford and Mellon Foundations to set up the Institute of Philo- 
sophical Research. Professor Adler is such an ardent advocate of world govern- 
ment that, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 29, 1945, he said: 

"We must do everything we can to abolish the United States." 

It would be interesting to find out just what kind of philosophical conclusions 
Professor Adler will arrive at with reference to the virtues of patriotism and 
government based on unalienable rights of men. 

E Grant to promote socialism : According to the Ford Foundation Annual 
Report for 1951, the foundation has. granted $50,000 to the Advertising Council, 
Inc., for "a restatement of the principles of American society." The council's 
public policy committee includes, in addition to Paul Hoffman, former president 
Of the Ford Foundation, and Chester C. Davis, its associate director, several 
persons who have Communist-front affiliations. 

The Miracle of America, a publication of the Advertising Council, Inc., states 
that the public-policy committee of the Advertising Council approves and en- 
dorses the economic-education program of the council. This program is de- 
scribed in the Miracle of America under the title "Platform for All Americans." 
This platform starts out like a firecracker Fourth of July patriotic speech and 
then turns out to be a rewrite of the British Labor— -Socialist— Party program. 
Adoption of this platform would guarantee the success of any Socialist legislation 
in America. The Miracle of America, containing this platform, has been cir- 
culated by hundreds of thousands by the Advertising Council as a part of its 
campaign of public information. Is this an educational program or is it propa- 
ganda in favor of socialism? 

F. Grant to pro-Communist India: The Ford Foundation has singled out 
India for some of its largest grants and is spending millions of dollars in that 
nation. Is there some special significance to singling out India for large Ford 
Foundation grants, in view of the fact that the head of the Indian Government 
is more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than toward the United States, and 
that he wants the United States to recognize Red China and admit that Com- 
munist nation, which is slaughtering Americans in Korea, to the United Nations? 
I am greatly concerned with what is being done with the Ford Foundation mil- 
lions in India. That nation is a potential ally of the Soviet Union, and if the 
Ford Foundation projects in any way are fostering a pro-Soviet attitude in 
India, the consequences may be disastrous for the future of America. 

The stakes are very high, for if India should definitely become a Soviet ally, 
the power of the Kremlin's bloc would be immeasurably increased. My fear 
of what the Ford Foundation might be doing in India is increased by the fact 
that in the case of China the activities of the Rockefeller Foundation in that 


nation helped, instead of hindered, the advance of communism. The late gentle- 
man from Georgia, Mr. Cox, on August 1, 1951, made the following statement lii 
this Chamber, with reference to the guilt of the Rockefeller Foundation for thtf 
triumph of the Communists in China : 

"The Rockefeller Foundation, whose funds have been used to finance individ- 
uals and organizations whose business it has been to get communism into the 
private and public schools of the country, to talk down America and to play- 
up Russia, must take its share of the blame for the swing of the professors and 
students in China to communism during the years preceding the successful Red 
revolution in China. For two generations, the Rockefeller Foundation played a 
guiding role in higher education in China. Over a period of 32 years $45 million 
of Rockefeller money was expended in China, most of it going to Chinese institu- 
tions of higher learning. If the Rockefeller fund spenders had had even an 
elementary conception of what was going on among the Chinese teachers and 
students, they would have taken steps to halt the stampede of the Chinese col- 
leges to communism. When the crisis of the Chinese revolution came, it was 
the stiident and teacher element, educated largely with Rockefeller money, who 
were the backbone of the Red success. Our boys are now suffering and dying 
in Korea, in part, because Rockefeller money encouraged trends in the Chinese 
colleges and schools which swung China's intelligentsia to communism." 

What has happened once can happen again, and I am sure that my colleagues 
in this Chamber share my anxiety as to the future of India and what the Ford 
Foundation is doing there — whether its activities are of such nature as to hamper 
India's orientation toward the Kremlin or to assist and augment it? In 
addition to the Rockefeller Foundation's activities in China, the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, supported mainly by foundations, played a major part in the 
success of the Chinese Red revolution. The McCarran committee's extensive 
investigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations showed how this organization, 
financed primarily by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corp., played 
the Kremlin's game with reference to China, and how it made possible the 
transformation of Nationalist China, our ally, into Red China, our enemy, with 
whom we are engaged in a bloody war. This investigation was a post mortem — 
it took place after China had been sold out to the Kremlin. But how much more 
useful it would he for a congressional committee to try to prevent by exposure 
any sort of activity, financed by the Ford Foundation, which may have a similar 
effect in India as the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations' activities had in 

The few examples I have given in regard to some of the officers of the Ford 
Foundation and its subsidiaries, and in regard to some of their activities, cer- 
tainly warrant a thorough inquiry into their officers and all of their extensive 
activities, which reach not only into every area of American intellectual life, 
but also into the far corners of the earth. 

^ Mr. Hays. I want to finish on this — and I do not see anything 
similar to the paragraph that Mr. Reece has shown me. If you are 
going to leave the statement, that foundations have not been asked 
why they did not support projects of a pro- American type, it leads 
me to believe that the staff is of the opinion that they did not or have, 
not. If you are of that opinion— — 

Mr. Dodd. It was not meant to convey that, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. I would still like to have a definition of pro- American. 

Mr. Dodd. May I answer? 
/Mr. Wormser. May I interrupt Mr. Dodd? 

Mr. Hats. If you mean by pro- American, if they have not con- 
tributed research that led them to the thinking of McKinley, Ulysses 
S. Grant, and Cohn and Schine, I am not for that in any case. But 
if pro- American means what I think it means, that is a very serious 
indictment. If pro- American means the pre-1900 isolationist policy 
of one of the political parties, I want to disagree with that definition 
of pro- American, because that does not mean pro- American to me. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, may I make a suggestion? We can, I 
think, give you a reference to the Cox hearings in which that question 


was asked and the term pro- American activities was used. That is 
where it was gotten. 

Mr. Hays. Yes ; but Mr. Dodd makes the statement here, the implied 
statement that foundations have not contributed to the pro-American 

Mr. Wormser. I would like him to answer that, but I do not think 
he meant to imply that. 

Mr. Hats. I think that is the crux of the whole statement he made 
so far. If the thing is going to turn on that, then we ought to have a 
definition of this term. 

The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield, I never understood 
Mr. Dodd to say that the foundations had not contributed anything 
of so-called pro- American activities, but he said the charge had been, 
made or the criticism had been made that their donations, grants, or 
assistance had been weighted against the so-called pro-American activ- 
ities. But Mr. Dodd can best answer that himself. 

Mr. Hays. Let me read again what Mr. Dodd said yesterday. It 
is on page 39 of the report. He says, "From our point of view there 
seem to be eight criticisms which had been made of the work of the 
Cox committee." I will not read all of them, but he goes down to 
this one, which looks like the sixth, that foundations jnad not been 
asked why they did not support projects of a pro- American type. 
If that does not imply that they did not support it, I do not know 
what does. I want that clarified right now. 

Mr. Dodd. May I answer it, Mr. Hays? 

Mr. Hays. Surely, I would like you to. 

Mr. Dodd. That was nothing more than listing what had been set 
forth as the type of criticisms, and we found they had been leveled 
against the work of the Cox committee. The effort of the staff was 
to include that portion of research which would enable eventually 
to have those criticisms answered. That is all that statement is in 
there for. 

Mr. Hays. Then has the staff found any evidence that the founda- 
tions have granted aid to pro- American projects ? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir. If you will refer to the statement which I made 
in the foreword, in which I believe 

Mr. Hays That is clear enough for me. I just wanted to clarify the 
point that there had been, and we are not starting out with an in- 
dictment that they had never done anything pro- American. 

Mr. Dodd. Oh, no. 

The Chairman. If the gentleman will permit an interruption; I 
undertook to make that clear in my opening statement yesterday. 

Mr. Hays. I appreciate that. I did not want that statement to go 
unchallenged. I still say I think we ought to have from the point of 
view of the staff a definition of what you mean by "pro- American." 
I do not insist on it at this minute, but I think along with your defini- 
tions, I think we ought to get it in the record. 

The Chairman. You can do that, can you not ? 

Mr. Hays. Later. 

Mr. Dodd. Not only that, sir, but it would seem to me to be the op- 
posite of the working definition which the staff used as to what was 
un-American, which was the definition that we obtained from 


The Chairman : You and Mr. Wormser work out that in connection 
with your other definition. 

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, may I refer Mr. Hays to this statement 
in the foreword that bears on this question which he has asked. 

Mr. Hats. Do you have the page number ? 

Mr. Dodd. I have not. 

Mr. Hays. All right: read it. 

Mr. Dodd. I am reading from the foreword, which was the state- 
ment made by me as I started yesterday's testimony. 

And in- the vast majority of instances, they— 

That is the benefit created by foundations — 

must be regarded as beyond question either from the standpoint of their corr- 
fiormity to the intentions of their donors or from the standpoint of- the truly 
American quality of their consequences. 

Mr. Hats. That is fine. I am glad to have that read again, because 
yesterday the public address system was not working too well, and we 
did not have a copy of what you were saying. It is very probable that 
we missed several important things that you said. 

Mr. Dodd. May I ask if you can hear me all right now ? / 

Mr. ; Hats. I can hear you ; yes. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, then. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the committee 
the benefit of a few excerpts which illustrate some of the things Mr. 
Dodd said yesterday, and is to say today. I think it woulcTBe better 
if I introduced those or offered them after he has finished his com- 
plete recitation. 

The Chairman. Without objection, and any of the insertions, I 
think, should come at the end of Mr. Dodd's statement, rather than 

Mr. Dodd. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Dodd. I am going on from where we left off yesterday where I 
mentioned that there were several entities other than strictly educa- 
tional institutions which we felt we would have to include in our 
studies. I mentioned them by name. To characterize some of these 

The American Council of Learned Societies was founded in 191^ 
to encourage humanistic studies, including some which today are 
regarded as social sciences. It is comprised of 24 constituent mem- 
ber associations. In its entirety, it appears to dominate scholarship 
in this country. 

The National Research Council was established in lQl^originally^ 
as a preparedness measure in connection with World War I. Its 
charter was renewed in 1919, since which time, on behalf of its eight 
member associations, it has been devoted to the promotion of re- 
search within the most essential areas ordinarily referred to as the 
exact and applied sciences. 

The Social Science Research Council was established in 1923 to 
advance research in the social sciences. It acts as spokesman for 
seven constituent member associations representing all of the major 
subdivisions of this new field of knowledge, i. e., history, economics, 
sociology, psychology, political science, statistics, and anthropology- 

49720—54 — pt. 1—— -4 


The American Council on Education was founded in 1918 — 

to coordinate the services which educational institutions and organizations 
could contribute to the Government in the national crisis brought about by 
World War I. 

Starting with 14 constituent or founding organizations, this for- 
midable and influential agency has steadily expanded until today its 
membership is reported to consist of 79 constituent members (na- 
tional and regional educational associations) ; 64 associate members 
(national organizations in fields related to education) ; 954 institu- 
tional members (universities, colleges, selected private school sys- 
tems, educational departments of industrial concerns, voluntary as- 
sociations of colleges and universities within the States, large public 
libraries, etc.). 

The National Education Association was established in 1857 to 
elevate character, advance the interests of the teaching profession, 
and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States. 
Broadly speaking, this powerful entity concentrates on primary and 
secondary schools. Its membership is reported to consist of 520,000 
individuals who include, in addition to teachers, superintendents, 
school administrators, and school secretaries. It boasts that it is — 

the only organization that represents or has the possiblity of representing the 
great body of teachers in the United States — 

thus inferring a monopolistic aim. 

The League for Industrial Democracy came into being in 1950, 
when it was known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, for the 
purpose of awakening the intellectuals of this country to the ideas 
and benefits of socialism. This organization might be compared to 
the Fabian Society in England, which was established in 1884 to 
spread socialism by peaceful means. 

The Progressive Education Association was established around 
1890. Since then it has been active in introducing radical ideas to 
education which are now being questioned by many. They include 
the idea that the individual must be adjusted to the group as a result 
of his or her educational experience, and that democracy is little 
more than a system for cooperative living. 

The American Historical Association was established in 1889 to 
promote historical studies. It is interesting to note that after giving 
careful consideration, in 1926, to the social sciences, a report was 
published under its auspices in 1934 which concluded that the day 
of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that 
the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of col- 
lectivism and an increase in the authority of the state. 

The John Dewey Society was formed in 1936, apparently for the 
twofold purpose of conducting research in the field of education and 
promoting the educational philosophy of John Dewey, in honor of 
whom the society was named. It could be supposed that those who 
were members of this organization would be devoted to the premises 
upon which Mr. Dewey had based his experiments in education since 
1896. Basically, these were pragmatic and a stimulus to empirical 
thinking. He held that ideas were instruments and their truth or 
falsity depended upon whether or not they worked successfully. 

The broad study which called our attention to the activities of these 
organizations has revealed not only their support by foundations, 


but has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which they 
have referred to as "an interlock," thus indicating a concentration of 
influence and power, By this phrase they indicate they are bound by 
a common interest rather than a dependency upon a single souree for 
capital funds. It is difficult to study their relationship without con- 
firming this. Likewise, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that their 
common interest has led them to cooperate closely with one another 
and that this common interest lies m the planning and control of 
certain aspects of American life through a combination of the Federal 
Government and education. 

This may explain why the foundations have played such an active 
role in the promotion of the social sciences, why they have favored 
so strongly the employment of social scientists by the Federal Govern- 
ment, and why they seem to have used their influence to transform 
education into an instrument for social change. 

We wish to stress the importance of questioning change only when 
it might involve developments detrimental to the interests of the 
American people, or when it is promoted by a relatively small and 
tightly knit group backed by disproportionately large amounts of 
money which could threaten the American ideal of competition. 

In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to 
each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly 
efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an educational 
curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from ma- 
triculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply 
with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social 
structure. For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will 
of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will — pre- 
sumably in the interest of all. Its development and production seems 
to have been largely the work of these organizations engaged in re- 
search, such as the Social Science Research Council and the National 
Eesearch Council. 

The, demand for their product seems to come from such strong and 
sizable aggregations of interests as the National Educational Asso- 
ciation and the American Council on Education, whose authorities 
seem to see in it the means by which education can render a national 
service. They make frequent reference to this service as "synonymous 
with the cause of education" and tend to criticize strongly anyone who 
dares to doubt the validity of their conclusions. 

Its promotion appears to have been managed by such organizations 
as the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical 
Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the John Dewey 
Society, and the Antidef amation League. Supplementing their efforts 
were others, such as the Parent-Teachers Association, the National 
Council of Churches, and the Committee for Economic Development* 
each of which has played some part in adjusting the minds of Ameri- 
can citizens to the idea of planning and to the marked changes which 
have taken place in "the public interest." 

Others, too, are engaged in the dissemination of this idea as being 
essential to the security of this country. Neither time nor funds have 
permitted me to direct the attention of the staff to the operations and 
influence of any but a few of these, beyond taking notice of their 
existence and the purposes which they serve. 

X J 


From our studies, it appears that the overall administration of this, 
functioning whole and the careful selection of its personnel seem to 
have been the peculiar interest of the American Council of Learned 
Societies. It is interesting to note that, by legislative action recently,, 
another entity has been brought into being known as the National 
Science Foundation, whose purpose is to develop a national policy 
with respect to science. Its additional purpose is to serve our Gov- 
ernment in an advisory capacity in connection with the huge appro- 
priations now being made for research in the interests of effective 
controls. Evidence exists of close cooperation between privately 
endowed foundations, the agencies through which they have operated 
and the educational institutions through which they have been accus- 
tomed to make grants for research. This process may contribute to 
an undesirable degree of concentrated power. 

It is also interesting to note that by comparison with funds for 
research provided by foundations, those now flowing from our Gov- 
ernment are so large that they dwarf foundation contributions. This 
promises to be true for some time to come and indicates that founda- 
tions may extend their influence over a wider area than in the past. 

The result of the development and operation of the network in. 
which foundations have played such a significant role seems to have 
provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system of 
education under the tight control of organizations and persons little 
known to the American public. Its operations and ideas are so com- 
plex as to be beyond public understanding or control. It also seems 
to have resulted in an educational product which can be traced to 
research of a predominantly empirical character in the inexact or 
social sciences. 

In these fields the specialists, more often than not, seem to have been 
concerned with the production of empirical data and with its applica- 
tion. Principles and their truth or falsity seem to have concerned 
them very little. 

In what appears from our studies to have been zeal for a radically 
new social order in the United States, many of these social science spe- 
cialists apparently gave little thought to either the opinions or the 
warnings of those who were convinced that a wholesale acceptance of 
knowledge acquired almost entirely by empirical methods would result 
in a deterioration of moral standards and a disrespect for principles. 
Even past experience which indicated that such an approach to the 
problems of society could lead to tyranny, appears to have been 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I do not like ,to interrupt Mr. Dodd,, 
but I have several questions. Right here it seems to me there is one 
that it might be well to ask him to clarify. He is tossing this word 
"empirical" around with a good deal of abandon, and I wonder 
if you would mind defining what you mean by empirical? 

Mr. Dodd. It is based upon the accumulation of observable facts,, 
Mr. Hays, and the tabulation of those. What we would ordinarily 
know as a statistical approach. 

Mr. Hays. Thank you. 

Mr. Dodd. May I continue, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Dodd. For these reasons, it has been difficult for us to dismiss 
the suspicion that, latent in the minds of many of the social scientists 


lias lain the belief that, given sufficient authority and enough funds, 
luman behavior can be controlled, and that this control can be exer- 
cised without risk to either ethical principles or spiritual values and 
that, therefore, the solution to all social problems should be entrusted 
to them. . 

In the light of this suspicion and the evidence which supports it, 
it has been difficult to avoid the conclusion that social scientists of the 
persuasion I have been discussing have been accepted by foundations, 
Government, and education as though their claims were .true— this is 
in the face of the fact that their validity has been disputed by men 
well trained in these same disciplines. 

In spite of this dispute within his own ranks, the social scientist 
is gradually becoming dignified by the title "Social Engineer." This 
title implies that the objective viewpoint of the pure scientist is about 
to become obsolete in favor of techniques of control. It also sug- 
gests that our traditional concept of freedom as the function of 
natural and constitutional law has already been abandoned by the 
"social engineer" and brings to mind our native fear of controls — 
however well intended. 

In the face of this, it seems strange that foundations made no 
reference in their reports to the consequences to be expected from a 
new science of society founded on empiricism and undisciplined by 
■either a set of principles or proved experiments. Apparently they 
were content to operate on the theory that they would produce usable 
data for others to employ and rely upon them to account for the 
effects. It may not have occurred to their trustees that the power 
to produce data in volume might stimulate others to use it in an 
undisciplined fashion without first checking it against principles 
discovered through the deductive process. 

Their position that they need not closely follow the effects of 
their support of such" grants also seems strange. Their reports often 
show that they were supporting such a new "science." The descrip- 
tions, however, made it very difficult to judge the ultimate purposes 
for which this support was being given. 

To summarize, both the general and the specific studies pursued 
by the staff during the past 6 months lead me to the tentative con- 
clusion that, within the social-science division of education, the 
foundations have neglected "the public interest" to a severe degree. 

In my judgment, this neglect may be found by the committee to 
have stemmed from : 

The willingness of foundations to support experiments in fields 
which defied control; to support these uncontrollable experiments 
without first having proved them to be "in the public interest" ; and 
to extend this support without reporting its purpose in language 
which could be readily understood. 

I suggest that the committee give consideration to the tendency 
of foundation trustees to abdicate responsibility. To illustrate: The 
following statement has been taken from An American Dilemma, 
the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, a book by Gunnar 
Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose, 
volume II: 

This study was made possible by funds granted by Carnegie Corp., of 
New York. That corporation is not, however, the author, owner, publisher, or 
proprietor of this publication, and is not to be understood as approving by 
virtue of its grant any of the statements made or views expressed therein. 


While this refers to but one project out of many, it becomes 
significant when it is realized that the project to which these books 
relate involve some $250,000, and. led to the publication of state- 
ments which were most critical of our Constitution. 

The similar tendency to delegate responsibility will be seen in 
the support given by foundations to agencies such as the Social 
Science Research Council, which disregards the legal concept: "He 
who acts through an agent, acts himself." 

Ford Foundation : Finally, I suggest that the committee give 
special consideration to the Ford Foundation. This foundation 
gives ample evidence of having taken the initiative in selecting pur- 
poses of its own. Being of recent origin, it should not be held re- 
sponsible for the actions or accomplishments of any of its prede- 
cessors. It is without precedent as to size, and it is the first founda- 
tion to dedicate itself openly to "problem solving" on a world scale. 

In a sense, Ford appears to be capitalizing on developments which 
took place long before it was founded, and which have enabled it to 
take advantage of the wholesale dedication of education to a social 
purpose, the need to defend this dedication against criticism, the 
need to indoctrinate adults along these lines, the acceptance by the 
executive branch of the Federal Government of responsibility for 
planning on a national and international scale, the diminishing im- 
portance of the Congress and the States and the growing power of 
the executive branch of the Federal Government, the seeming indis- 
pensability of control over human behavior. 

As if they had been influenced directly by these developments, 
the trustees established separate funds for use in the fields of educa- 
tion, national planning, and politics. They set up a division devoted 
to the behavioral sciences, which includes a center for advanced study, 
a program of research and training abroad, an institutional-exchange 
program, and miscellaneous grants-in-aid. 

Supplementing these major interests are such varied activities as : 
a TV radio workshop, "external grants," intercultural publications, 
and an operation called the East European Fund, which is about to be 

When it is considered that the capital resources of this foundation 
approach, or may exceed, $500 million, and that its income approxi- 
mates $30 million each year, it is obvious that before embarking upon 
the solution of "problems," some effort should be made by the trustees 
to make certain that their solution is "in the public interest." 

It is significant that the policies of this foundation include making 
funds available for certain aspects of secret military research and for 
the education of the Armed Forces. It becomes even nlore significant 
when it is realized that the responsibility for the selection of the 
personnel engaged in these projects is known to rest on the foundation 
itself — subject as it may be to screening by our military authorities. 

In this connection, it has been interesting to examine what the edu- 
cational aspect of these unprecedented foundation activities can be 
expected to produce. The first example is a pamphlet in which the 
Declaration of Independence is discussed as though its importance 
lay in the fact that it had raised two, as yet unanswered, questions : 

1. Are men equal and do we demonstrate this equality ? 

2. What constitutes "the consent of the governed" and what does 
this phrase imply in practice? 


By inference, the first question is subtly answered in the negative. 
By direct statement, the second is explained as submitting to majority 
ru l e — but the restriction of the majority by the Constitution is hot 
mentioned. Only an abridged version of the Declaration is printed. 
It is interesting that this should omit the list of grievances which 
originally made the general concepts of this document reasonable. 

It seems incredible that the trustees of typically American fortune 
created foundations should have permitted them to be used to finance 
ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental concepts of 
our Constitution. Yet there seems evidence that this may have 

I assume it is the purpose of this inquiry to gather and weigh the 

Respectfully submitted by myself. 

Mr. Chairman, that is the end of the statement. 

The Chairman. What does the following page refer to, which makes 
reference to charts ? 

Mr. Dodd. You will recall that I mentioned in my statement yester- 
day that the staff had made a study of the changes which had taken 
place in the elements comprising the public interest from the turn of 
the century to the present day. That study was entitled "The Eco- 
nomics of the Public Interest." In that study, Mr. Chairman, are 
these 12 charts. 

The Chairman. Are those charts to be submitted ? 

Mr. Dodd. At counsel's convenience, I believe he plans to do so. 
But I also believe he plans to do so when he submits that particular 
study itself. Of that I am not sure. 

Mr. Wormser. I think we will introduce it later. You may have 
it now if you wish, but it would come in more logically later, Mr. 

May I now offer certain material which Mr. Dodd might read into 
the record to illustrate some of the things he had discussed in his testi- 
mony. For example, on page 45 of the record, he made a statement 
discussing the extent to which foundations like Carnegie and Rocke- 
feller had made contributions or expended funds for the purpose of 
directing education in the United States toward an international frame 
of reference. 

Mr. Hats. That is a good place for a question right there, Mr. 

The Chairman. Were you submitting something, Mr. Wormser? 

Mr. Wormser. I was about to ; yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hays has a question. 

Mr. Hats. I would like you to explain a little more fully, you say 
that these foundations have furthered this purpose by directing educa- 
tion in the United States toward an international frame of reference 
and discrediting the traditions to which it had been dedicated. 

What are these traditions to which it has been dedicated? That 
seems to me to be a rather critical thing, and I would like to know more 
about it. I may get educated all over. I am reading from the report 
on page 45, where you stopped. I read a little more. 

Mr. Wormser. It is page 14 of your manuscript copy, Mr. Dodd. 

Mr. Dodd. May I answer, Mr. Hays ? 

Mr. Hats. Yes. 


Mr. Dodd. That which appeared most frequently, Mr. Hays, would 
relate to an adage or viewpoint which was to avoid entangling alliances 
and which had come down through the years. That would be a perti- 
nent aspect of it with respect to international affairs. 

Mr. Hats. You mean you are taking that from George Washing- 
ton's Farewell Address. 

Mr. Dodd. I am just taking that because they make reference to it. 

Mr. Hays. I do not think we can keep something that George Wash- 
ington said 150 years ago as being a basis for guidance today and say 
anything contrary to it is 100 percent wrong. I think George Wash- 
ington was a pretty smart man, and I respect him and revere him, but 
certainly the Monroe Doctrine was an entangling alliance, and it also 
is one of those revered cliches that we use a good deal now. I would 
rather that this investigation got off without using any more cliches 
than we can help. 

Mr. Dodd. This is not designed to say whether it is good or bad or be 
critical or otherwise. This is the way it appeared, and this is the way 
it unfolded. 

Mr. Hays. I got the pretty firm impression that it was going to ap- 
pear this way the first time I ever talked to you about it. Do you 
remember last fall, more than 6 months ago, I tried to find out just 
where this investigation was going, and I got pretty much the impres- 
sion that I could have almost written this myself from that first con- 
versation. That is all right. I do not want to find fault with that. 
But let us bring in the facts to prove it. Let us not stand on a bunch 
of assertions. 

Mr. Dodd. As I understand it, that is what counsel intends to do, 
Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays and Mr. Chairman, we expect in the course 
of hearings to introduce in addition to the testimony of witnesses, 
various extracts from printed material produced or supported by the 
foundations themselves. There will be a considerable oody of that 
kind of evidence. 

In this particular connection, Mr. Hays, we suggest that a proper 
subject of inquiry for the committee is whether or not propaganda 
is desirable for a foundation which operates as the fiduciary manager 
of public funds. In the case of the Carnegie endowment we will be 
glad to introduce evidence later to show that they were consciously 
produced, a propaganda machine. We are anxious to get the facts. 
If there is an adequate explanation of that which takes it out of the 
class of propaganda which public funds privately managed should 
not be used for, we will be glad to hear it. But it seems to me that 
this committee has the duty to inquire whether or not propaganda by 
foundations with public money is desirable. 

Mr. Hays. You say that the Carnegie Foundation consciously pro- 
duced a propaganda machine ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. And that is bad per se. 

Mr. Wormser. I am presenting that to the committee to decide. I 
am not trying to decide. 

Mr. Hays. If a foundation has produced consciously a propaganda 
machine, it is the Facts Forum. I have not much evidence that the 
staff has done much digging there. They not only have a propaganda 
machine, but that outfit puts money in to defeat people like me for 


Congress. That is pretty essential to me. That is bad propaganda 

from my viewpoint. '.-•'•' 

The Chairman. Another foundation, or at least an organization 
that comes within the definition of a foundation, has been called to the 
attention of the committee, and that is the so-called Christian Laymen's 
Movement, which it certainly would appear from some documents 
which I have seen circularized, engages in. propaganda. 

Mr. Hays. The chairman knows that he and I have discussed that, 
and we are in complete agreement, that in the first instance it is not a 
foundation, and in the second instance, we ought to bring them in and 
find out why they have used the name. 

The Chairman. If any foundations have contributed money for 
political purposes, I think that ought to"be developed. 

Mr. Hays. Directly or by purporting to present facts, and doing so 
in a biased manner. 

The Chairman. If any of the foundations have contributed money 
for political purposes to defeat or elect any candidate, I think that 
ought to be developed. 

Mr. Wormser. May I say regarding the Facts Forum, may I say 
that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is making a study of its own of 
that institution. 

Mr. Hays. May I say I talked to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 
and they have finished their study. If you cannot get it, they will 
make the facts available to you. 

Mr. Wormser. The second thing I want to say in explanation is 
that we have had considerable difficulty in getting access to forms 
990-A, as you know. The return of this particular foundation was 
finally made available to us last Friday at 4 : 30. 

Mr. Hays. I talked to the Assistant Director about 3:30. He 
really acted fast. He told me you would get it. I appreciate the 
speed with which he made it available. 

The Chairman. However, the chairman might say that with ref- 
erence to making available the tax return form 990-A which is the 
document in which the committee is particularly interested, it has 
been authorized to be made available by an Executive order. The 
delay and the difficulty has come through the slowness of the ad- 
ministrative action in the Department, as I understand it, but that 
matter is now pretty well cleared up; is it not, Mr. Wormser; so that 
these forms are now available. In fairness to the staff, there has been 

Mr. Hays. I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I just got into the 
picture because the staff informed me that they were having trouble 
getting hold of this particular one, because it seemed to be lost or 
something. When I called, it was not lost ; they found it right away. 

The Chairman. It is my understanding that you had difficulty 
getting some of the others also. 

Mr. Wormser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So, it was not this particular one that was an 
isolated case. 

Mr. Wormser. We gave them a list of those foundations whose re- 
turns we wanted particularly to examine. When they finally gave 
us access to them, we found that many of those we wanted were still 
not there, and the problem was that they had not been gotten into 
the Washington office from some of the field offices. So, we still have 


not got a complete story to tell. Moreover, we have the mechanical 
difficulty with our small staff that they will not let us photostat any 
of these returns and permit us only to examine them on their premises 
which, makes it very difficult for us to work with them. 

Mr. Hats. I assume that on this complete story, Mr. Dodd says* he 
thinks the Ford Foundation ought to be gone into pretty thoroughly. 
I suppose we will develop that story by having them in. If the staff 
is too busy, it would suit me to bring in Mr. Hunt and the rest of the 
Facts Forum people and develop their story right here, too. He 
seems to have trouble getting publicity. Maybe we will get him a 

The Chairman. As a result of my consultation with the staff, it is 
expected that the foundation, generally will have opportunity to ap- 
pear, in fact will be invited to appear. The presentation by Mr. Dodd 
is more or less forming the basis for the appearance of the representa- 
tives of the various foundations. 

Mr. Hats. This is the indictment or the bill of particulars. 

Mr. Wormser. The bill of particulars is a good term, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. That is what I was going on. I just want to be sure 
that we get this one I am talking about in the bill of particulars. I 
want to amend it right here and get them in. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, the staff have had certain rea- 
sons for proceeding this way. One was that they thought it was 
desirable for the foundations themselves to understand the approach 
which the staff had made in this study. From some of the conversa- 
tions that Mr. Wormser, as well as myself, have had with foundations, 
I think they are rather satisfied with this method of procedure; not 
that it is either favorable or unfavorable to them, but they think it 
is a sound and logical method in which to proceed. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I may be seeming to ask 
some critical questions, but I do not want to imply that there has been 
any trouble between myself and the staff. It may be that I do not 
see eye to eye on a good many things, but the staff has been very 
responsive any time I have asked them a question to come up and 
explain it, or to make the files available, or anything like that. There 
has been no difficulty whatsoever on that score. 

The Chairman. Certainly I never so understood you to infer, that 
is, not only the staff, but the members of the committee themselves. 

Mr. Hats. Let us not be too optimistic. 

The Chairman. I am only speaking up to the present time. I am 
not projecting that into the future. If there are no further questions, 
Mr. Wormser, you may proceed. 

Mr. Wormser. This statement was not intended to cover every- 
thing we are going to cover in the hearings. This was intended to 
cover what we might call the most important or main lines of inquiry 
we suggest. The reason for doing it now is, as the chairman said, to 
give the foundations an opportunity to know what most important 
matters we want to go into in relation to them. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Wormser. I think Mr. Dodd might wish to read an extract 
from the report of the Carnegie Endowment which is taken from their 
1937 yearbook, being part 01 the report of the division of intercourse 
and education. 


Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

One of the regular branches of work of the division of intercourse and educa- 
tion is the distribution of the International Mind Alcove Collection. The public 
libraries of small communities welcome these carefully selected books on foreign 
countries and international relations as a distinct help in developing and broad- 
ening the point of view of their communities often isolated from reading material 
of this type. During the past 14 years 739 towns have benefited by this service 
with 490 on the Alcove list at the end of 1936. 

The Chairman. What is that number ? 

Mr. Dodd. 490. 

Mr. Hays. What is this Alcove list, before you go any further? 
Would you enlighten the committee ? 

Mr. Dodd. The list, Mr. Hays, is a composite of titles of boohs 
which go as a single collection into libraries in communities. I think 
the name "Alcove" is to designate that it stands by itself in whatever 
library it happens to be put. I think that is how they happened to 
hit on "Alcove" as a word. Their full title is "International Mind 
Alcove Collection." I think that is to set the tenor of the books them- 
selves. In other words, the general subject of international matters. 

Mr. Hays. I take it that the staff does not approve of this collection ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Dodd. No, Mr. Hays. I think counsel is introducing this as an 
example of the fact that the Carnegie Corp. or the Carnegie Endow- 
ment for Peace was interested in awakening the people of this country 
to an international viewpoint. This is not to mean that it is good 
or bad, sir. 

Mr. Hays. All right. That is what I want to get clear. That suits 

Mr, Dodd. I sincerely hope, as that statement was read, that there 
are no instances of an attempt at what we call quality judgments. 

May I proceed, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

After a collection has reach 100 titles, no further books are sent. In this way 
funds are released to establish new Alcoves elsewhere. 

The librarian agrees when accepting the initial installment to interest readers 
in every way possible in the books and in their purpose and often this personal 
enthusiasm and cooperation add greatly to the success of the work. The local 
press is generous in giving space for the announcement and description of new 
Alcove titles, 4 of which are sent every 3 months, thus permitting the very latest 
publications to be chosen. 

Then on page 59 of this same yearbook : 


The international relations clubs organized under the auspices of the division 
throughout the world show an increase in 1936 to 66, making a total of 805. 
These clubs are most numerous in the 48 States of the United States, in all of 
which they are active. Clubs are also organized in 32 other countries reaching 
halfway round the globe to distant Siam and including such parts of the United 
States as Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and also the Philippines. For 20 years 
the work of the international relations clubs has been described in these reports. 
It is an integral part of the work of the division carried along the lines so often 
laid down in these pages. 

On page 62: 

There are now (that is as of December 31, 1936) 157 groups organized in 
foreign countries. 


On page 63 : 

The international relations clubs in high schools have been a natural out- 
growth of the work of the clubs in colleges and universities. Members of these 
latter clubs have spoken at the high schools in their communities and have- 
invited high-school students to come to their meetings. Also club members 
graduating from college frequently go into the teaching profession which puts 
them in direct touch with high-school students who are eager to learn more 
about international relations. On December 31, 1936, there were 206 high school 
international relations clubs, and applications are constantly being received. 
To these clubs a package of pamphlet material is sent twice a year to aid them 
in their studies. 

And finally this comes* from President Butler's report to the annual 
meeting of the board of trustees on page 179 : 

As you see from the annual report, we have now in the United States between 
800 and 900 international relations clubs, chiefly in the smaller institutions of 
learning, college and high school. They meet on the average of once a week. 
They read and discuss endowment publications, the news of the day, everything 
bearing upon economic cooperation and peace. 

We have in addition about 800 International Mind Alcoves in public libraries. 
These bear our name. They consist of books, 30, 40, 50, sometimes 100 in number, 
which can be read either by young people or old, as the case may be, and which 
give an account of the characteristics, the geography, the history, the literature, 
the products, the life of other peoples. Sometimes there is included a novel 
dealing with the psychology and the habits of other people than our own. These 
are producing a very profound effect upon the mind of the young people in the- 
United States and have shown themselves to be very practical, indeed. 

Mr. Wormser. Again in the same area, I would like with your per- 
mission, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Dodd to read from the 1947 yearbook 
of the Carnegie Endowment, which contains a report called Recom- 
mendations of the President. The president, incidentally, in passing,, 
at the moment was Alger Hiss. I would like Mr. Dodd to read starting, 
at page 16. ■ ' ■ 

Mr. Hays. Would you describe that again, and tell us what it is ? 
I am sorry I did not hear everything you said. I did hear the name 
Alger Hiss. 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. It is from the 1947 yearbook of the Carnegie- 
Endowment for International Peace. Entered at page 15 is a reprint 
of a document called Recommendations of the President to the 
Trustees. It is signed by Alger Hiss, president. 

Mr. Hats. It was an unfortunate thing when the Secretary of State 
recommended him to the Carnegie Foundation, was it not % 

Mr. Woemser. I think we would all agree on that. 

Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

Ainong the special circumstances favorable to an expansion of the endowments- 
own direct activities, the most significant is the establishment of the United! 
Nations with its headquarters in New York, and with the United States as its 
leading and most influential member. 

The United States was the chief architect of the United Nations and is its chief 
support. The opportunity for an endowed American institution having the ob- 
jectives, traditions, and prestige of the endowment, to support and serve the 
United Nations is very great. No other agency appears to be so favorably situated 
as is the endowment for the undertaking of such a program- 

So far as we have been able to ascertain, no other agency is contemplating the 
undertaking of such a program. Consequently, I recommend most earnestly that 
the endowment construct its program for the period that lies ahead primarily 
for the support and the assistance of the United Nations. I would suggest that 
this program be conceived of as having two objectives. First, it should be 
widely educational in order to encourage public understanding and support of 
the United Nations at home and abroad. Second, it should aid in the adoption 
of wise policies, both by our own Government in its capacity as a member of the 
United Nations, and by the United Nations Organization as a whole. 


The number and importance of decisions in the field of foreign relations 
with which the United States will be faced during the next few years are 
«f such magnitude that the widest possible stimulation of public education in 
this field is of major and pressing importance. In furthering its educational 
objective, the endowment should utilize its existing resources, such as the inter- 
national-relations clubs in the colleges and international conciliation, and should 
strengthen its relationships with existing agencies interested in the field of 
foreign affairs. These relationships- should include close collaboration with 
other organizations principally engaged in the study of foreign affairs, the 
Institute of Pacific Relations, the developing university centers of international 
relations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foreign Policy Association, 
and local community groups interested in foreign affairs, of which the Cleveland 
Council on World Affairs and the projected World Affairs Council in San 
Francisco are examples. 

Of particular importance is the unusual opportunity of reaching large seg- 
ments of the population by establishing relations of a rather novel sort with 
the large national organizations which today are desirous of supplying their 
members with objective information on public affairs, including international 
issues. These organizations, designed to serve, respectively, the broad interests 
of business, church, women, farm, labor, veterans, educational, and other large 
groups of our citizens, are not equipped to set up foreign policy research staffs 
on their own. The endowment should supply these organizations with basic 
information about the United Nations, and should assist them both in selecting 
topics of interest to their members and in presenting those topics so as to be 
most readily understood by their members. 

We should urge the Foreign Policy Association and the Institute of Pacific 
Relations to supply similar service on other topics of international significance. 
Explanation should also be made by the endowment as to the possibilities of 
increasing the effectiveness of the radio and motion pictures in public education 
on world affairs. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Wormser, may I ask a question? 

Mr. Wormser. Please, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. What was the purpose of putting that in the record? 

Mr. Wormser. I am trying to give a few illustrations of some of 
the more important statements which Mr. Dodd made in his report 
to give some justification for lines of inquiry. As I said before, we 
asked the committee to consider whether propaganda by a public 
foundation privately managed but consisting of public money in es- 
sence is desirable or proper. We believe we have evidence to show 
that the Carnegie Foundation or Endowment for International Peace 
has created, as I said, a propaganda machine. Its propaganda might 
be good. 

Mr. Hats. Let us explore while we are at it and see if it is in any 
way responsible for the present floundering foreign policy we have. 
There seems to be some connection between Mr. Dulles and this Car- 
negie Foundation. Maybe we will get to the bottom of that. 

There might be something useful out of this after all. 

The Chairman. I suggest we can make our observations on that 
after the hearing has been further developed. 

Mr. Wormser. These are merely illustrations and not the complete 
story in any way. 

Mr. Hats. I do not expect the staff to follow that suggestion, but 
it is the line of inquiry I would like to follow. 

The Chairman. Do you have further suggestions there? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. 

The Chairman. I am sure the staff will give full support to the 
suggestion of the gentleman. 

Mr. Hats. I will: even try to get them some more money for that. 

Mi". Wormser: I believe at page 26 of the record Mr. Dodd referred 
to the operations or activities of the foundations in changing our edu- 


cational and to some extent, I believe, our cultural life somewhat 
radically. I would like him to read with your permission from a book 
of Ernest Victor Hollis, Philanthropic Organizations and Higher 
Education, published in 1938. Mr. Dodd will read from page 81. 

Mr. Hats. This refers to what paragraph on page 26 of the record ? 

Mr. Wormsbr. I have not the record in front of me, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Koch. The last full paragraph of Mr. Dodd's statement. 

Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

Foundations have been so skillful in overcoming these obstacles that they 
now exercise a maximum of initiative. Today they have a vital part in practi- 
cally every type of progressive educational experiment underway in America. 
Possibly there has been no more radical and forward-looking study of the Ameri- 
can scene than is presented in the 16-volume report of the Social Studies Commis- 
sion of the American Historical Association, which was begun in 1927 and very 
recently completed. 

The report demands a radical change in many of the major premises under- 
lying our economic, social, and cultural life. This uliraprogressive study was 
sponsored and supported to the extent of $340,000 by the Carnegie Corp. In 
addition, the corporation has contributed an aggregate of $1,404,840 to experi- 
mentation in adult education, $309,500 to the study of radio in education, and an 
aggregate of $5,700,000 to the endowment and support of progressive experi- 
mental college programs in general, and specifically at Chicago, Bard, Colgate, 
Stevens, Southwestern, and over $5 million to the promotion of educational 
efforts in the fine arts, especially the pictorial and graphic arts and music. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, this appears, I believe, on page 31 
of the mimeographed statement. 

Mr. Hats. We will have an oportunity to come back and question 
some of these statements later. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Dodd mentioned in connection with the book, 
American Dilemma, by Gunnar Myrdal, that there were some state- 
ments in that book critical of our Constitution. With your permis- 
sion I would like him to read several of these statements to illustrate 
what he means. 

Mr. Dodd. This is the first of approximately four such statements, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Indeed, the new republic began its career with a reaction. Charles Beard in 
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and a group 
of modern historians, throwing aside the much cherished national mythology 
which had blurred the difference in spirit between the Declaration of Independ- 
ence and the Constitution, have shown that the latter was conceived in con- 
siderable suspicion against democracy and fear of "the people." It was domi- 
nated by property consciousness and designed as a defense against the democratic 
spirit let loose during the Revolution. 

This conservatism, in fundamental principles, has, to a great extent, been 
perverted into a nearly f etishistic cult of the Constitution. This is unfortunate 
since the 150-year-old Constitution is in many respects impractical and ill-suited 
for modern conditions and since, furthermore, the drafters of the document made 
it technically difficult to change even if there were no popular feeling against the 

Modern historical studies of how the Constitution came to be as it is reveal 
that the Constitutional Convention was nearly a plot against the common people. 
Until recently the Constitution has been used to block the popular — 

The Chairman. Will you repeat that last sentence ? 
Mr. Dodd. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Modern historical studies of how the Constitution came to be as it is reveal 
that the Constitutional Convention was nearly a plot against the common people. 
Until recently the Constitution has been used to block the popular will: the 
14th amendment inserted after the Civil War to protect the civil rights of the 


poor freedmen has, for instance, been used more to protect business corporations 
against public control. 

Another cultural trait of Americans is a relatively low degree of respect of 
law and order. 

Mr. Wormser. I would like to call your attention again, Mr. Chair- 
man, to the fact that this two- volume book was financed by the 
Carnegie Corp. to the extent of a quarter of a million dollars. 

Mr. Hats. On that that you just read, did I understand you to say 
that is four different excerpts ? 

Mr. Dodd. I said it was about four different excerpts. 

Mr. Hays. All lifted out of context, no doubt. 

Mr. Dodd. I personally read the book, Mr. Hays, but I would not 
say it had been lifted out of context. 

Mr. Hays. The way you read it, I thought it was all one statement. 
It is four different places in the book. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes. The first one appears on page 7, the second one on 
page 12, the third one on page 13, and the fourth which I read was 
sentence No. 1 in a paragraph appearing, on page 14. Broadly speak- 
ing it is a sequential statement. 

Mr. Hays. There are statements in there that I certainly disagree 
strongly with, and; I think are damaging and untrue, but I want to get 
the page so I can read the whole thing, and find out what they are 
related to. 

The Chairman. I think to have the; pages listed is a very good 

Mr. Hays. I want to make it perfectly clear that I think some of 
those statements are certainly statements that the committee has every 
valid: reason to find fault with. 

Mr. Dodd. It goes on, Mr. Chairman : 

This trait, as well as the other one just mentioned is of paramount importance 
for ttoe Negro problem as we shall show in some detail in later chapters. There 

Mr. Hays. Bead that sentence again about the Constitution being 
difficult to amend. It sounds almost like Mr. Bricker might have 

said it. 
Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

This Is unfor ttmate since the 150-y ear-old Constitution is in many respects 
impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions and since, furthermore— 

Mr. Hays. That is not the one. 

Mr. Dodd (reading) : 

The drafters of the document made it technically difficult to change even if 
there were no popular feeling against change. 

Mr. Hays. Part of that statement is certainly true, we will have 
to admit. I do not admit your premise. 

Mr. Wolcott. Is that bad? 

Mr. Hays. No ; I am for it being difficult to change. I rather 
enjoyed the attempt that was made here not long ago. 

Mr. Dodd. Then it goes on, Mr. Hays : 

Bach legislative statute is judged by the common citizen in terms of Ms con- 
ception of the higher natural law. He decides whether it is just or unjust and 
has the dangerous attitude that if it is unjust he may feel free to disobey it. 


That relates to our evidence of disrespect for law and order. 

This anarchistic tendency in Americans' legal culture becomes even more dan- 
gerous because of the presence of a quite different tendency, a desire to regulate 
human behavior tyranically by means of formal laws. This last tendency is a 
heritage from early American Puritanism, which was sometimes fanatical and 
dogmatic and also had a strong inclination to mind other people's business. 

So we find that this American who is so proud to announce that he will not 
obey laws other than those which are good and just, as soon as the discussion 
turns to something which in his opinion is bad and unjust, will emphatically 
pronounce that there ought to be a law against it. To demand and legislate all 
sorts of laws against this or that is just as much part of American freedom 
as to disobey the laws when they are enacted. America has become a country 
where exceedingly much is permitted in practice, but at the same time exceedingly 
much is forbidden by law. 

And the final statement is as follows : 

The popular explanation of the disparity in America between ideals and actual 
behavior is that Americans do not have the slightest intention of living up to 
the ideals which they talk about and put into their Constitution and laws. Many 
Americans are accustomed to talk loosely and disparagingly about adherence to 
the American creed as lip service and even hypocrisy. Foreigners are even 
more prone to make such a characterization. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, I have here a quotation which, if 
you will turn to the bottom of page 31, Mr. Dodd referred to the 
tendency by trustees to delegate their responsibility. There are 
apparently several types of delegation. This very short quote which 
I shall read myself with your permission illustrates one type. It is 
from a book by Shelby M. Harrison and F. Emerson Andrews, pub- 
lished by the Russell Sage Foundation in 1946, at page 44: , 

The primary function of a board of trustees is the broad determination of 
policies in harmony with the foundations' charter. However, while complete 
authority has been vested in the board, it has neither the time nor usually the 
special knowledge required for detailed administration of the work of the larger 

I would like to have Mr. Dodd read most of two letters addressed by 
Prof. J. Fred Rippy, of the University of Chicago to the Honorable E. 
E. Cox, who was chairman of the previous committee which we re- 
ferred to as the Cox committee. The first is dated August 4, 1951 ; the 
second is dated November 8, 1952. 

With your permission, I have deleted two small sections of the first 
letter for the sole reason that they name individuals, and in conform- 
ance with our desire to keep individuals out of these, hearings as much 
as possible, I would prefer not to have them read into the record. 
If the committee wants I can show them the original letters. 

Mr. Hays. I think it would be a good idea for the committee to see 
the letters before you read them. Who is this Professor Rippy, and 
what is his ax to grind ? 

Mr. Wormser. I have here an extract from Who r s Who. 

Mr. Hats. Of course, he writes that himself. That is their honest 
estimate of themselves. 

Mr. Wormser. It will give you his university connections. He got 
his A. B. at Southwestern, his A. M. at Vanderbilt and his Ph. D. at 
the University of California. He has had three fellowships, one from 
the Guggenheim Foundation, one from Carnegie. He has been an 
assistant professor of history at the University of California. He 
was before that I believe an instructor in history at Chicago, then 
assistant professor or associate professor. He was a full professor 


of history at Duke, and a full prof essor at Chicago. He has also taught 
at Johns Hopkins, at the National University of Mexico, at the Uni- 
versity of Louisiana, and the University of Washington. He belongs 
to many of the societies. He has had two Government posts, a member 
of the United States National Commission on History and Geography. 
In 1935 he was a delegate to the Panamanian Conference on History 
and Geography. p 

Mr. Hats. Is he now associated with the University of Chicago ? 

Mr. Woemsek. These 1951 and 1952 letters say the department of 
history. Yes, he is still there. 

Mr. Hays. I assume the letters are critical of the university. 

Mr. Woemsee. They are not critical of the university; no. 

Mr. Hats. I do not see any reason to delete. He mentions his opin- 
ion about these people. If they are not so, let them come in and say 
so. If you are going to put his letter in, let us not get in the habit 
of dropping out things. 

Mr. Dodd. I better read from their original. 

Mr. Hats. They will go in in their entirety ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. It is only his opinion. 

Mr. Wormser. I did it for their protection. 

Mr. ILvts. Never mind. If you are going to put it in, let them 
come in and protect themselves. Maybe they will have something 
to say about him. 

Mr. Wolcott. I think Mr. Wormser's idea was that we should not 
turn these hearings into an investigation of individuals' morals 
or attainments or qualifications and so forth. I respect the fact that 
if his opinions of individuals are not germane to this subject, they 
probably should be deleted. But I recognize also a member's right 
to object to deleting any part of them. I suppose that as Members 
of the Congress and congressional committees are immune from 
publishing libelous statements, so I think we are safe in reading it. 
I do not know that we want to contribute to it. 

Mr. Hats. I do not want to contribute to any libelous statement, 
but I think it might turn out this man— and I am saying it might, 
because I don't know and I have not had a chance to read the letters — 
but it might turn out he is a little bit disgruntled, and frequently you 
get letters from people like that. He said he had some sad experi- 
ences. Maybe from his viewpoint they were sad. I do not know. 
He mentions his names of people who gave him sad experiences and 
says they are arrogant, and let them come in and say what they think 
about him. 

Mr. Wolcott. If you want to think of the sadness of others, you 
will make others sad. 

Mr. Hats. Let us leave the letters out. I do not like to put in parts 
of letters, because when you start deleting you make the public sus- 
picious that everything is not right. Let us either leave them out 
or put them in. If you are solicitous about the people he mentions, 
I am just willing to forget them. 

Mr. Wolcott. I surely am not. I have not seen the letters. I 
might agree with you. 

Mr. Hats. It may be a good thing if the committee read the letters 
so we would all know what we are talking about, and put them in 
tomorrow. That might illuminate the subject. 

49720— 54-^pt. 1 -5 


Mr. Wormser. That is perfectly acceptable to me. 

Mr. Hays. If there is disagreement as to whether they go in or not. 

Mr. Wolcott. I thought if they are not germane to the subject 
matter, I think the staff is right in requesting that part be deleted. 
But I have no objection to not having it deleted, and that it be read. 

Mr. Wormser. May I make the suggestion that Mr. Dodd read the 
second letter, which has no deletions in it. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Wormser. Will you read the second one, Mr. Dodd ? 

Mr. Dodd. I am reading from a letter dated November 8, 1952, from 
a Prof. J. Fred Kippy, University of Chicago, department of history. 
It is addressed to the Honorable E. E. Cox : 

Dear Congressman Cox : Since I wrote you on August 4, 1951, Dr. Abraham 
Flexner, a man who has had much experience with the foundations, has pub- 
lished a book entitled "Funds and Foundations," in which he expresses views 
similar to those contained in my letter. I call your attention to the following 
pages of Flexner's volume : 84, 92, 94, 124, and 125. Here Dr. Flexner denies 
that the foundation staffs had the capacity to pass wisely on the numerous 
projects and individuals for which and to which grants were made, and contends 
that the grants should have been made to universities as contributions to their 
endowments for research and other purposes. 

The problem is clearly one of the concentration of power in hands that could 
not possibly be competent to perform the enormous task which the small staffs 
had the presumption to undertake. This, says Flexner, was both "pretentious" 
and "absurd." In my opinion, it was worse than that. The staffs were guilty 
of favoritism. The small committees who passed on the grants for projects 
and to individuals were dominated by small coteries connected with certain 
eastern universities. A committee on Latin American studies, set up in the 
1940's, for instance, was filled with Harvard graduates. A single professor of 
history on the Harvard faculty had the decisive word regarding every request 
for aid presented by historians. 

By granting these subsidies to favorite individuals and favored ideas, the 
foundations contribute to inequalities in opportunity and interfere with "free 
trade and ideas." They increase the power of favored groups to dominate our 
colleges and universities. Men whose power exceeds their wisdom, or men who 
are not guided by the principle of equality of opportunity, could become a menace. 
If possible, under the terms of our Federal Constitution, these foundations should 
either be taxed out of existence or compelled to make their grants to colleges 
and universities, to be distributed by faculty committees of these institutions. 
Evenhanded justice may not prevail even then because such justice is rarely 
achieved in human relations. But a greater approximation to evenhanded jus- 
tice will be made because these local committees will have more intimate knowl- 
edge of recipients. This, as you know, is the fundamental justification for de- 
centralization of power, for the local autonomy which was so prominent in the 
thinking of our Founding Fathers. 
Very sincerely, 

J. Feed Rippy. 

The Chairman. Mr. Wormser, do you have anything further ? 

Mr. Wormser. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. I have here a long 

Mr. Hays. Wait a minute. Are we leaving Professor Hippy now? 
I wanted to ask a question or two before we leave him completely. 

Mr. Wormser. I thought you were going to read the letter which 
has not been introduced. 

Mr. Hays. We are going to read it, but maybe we will never intro- 
duce it. If we are going to introduce letters from isolated — and I 
would not like to use the word "obscure" because I never heard of 
him — professors, maybe we ought to know a little more about him. 
Maybe we ought to have him in here to ask a few questions. Does the 
staff have any knowledge whether he ever applied to Harvard and 


got turned down for a job? He seems to have a craw for Harvard. 
I am no defender of Harvard. I never went there. It would be inter- 
esting to know these things. 

I might interpolate to say that in my experience in Congress when 
people are moved enough to sit down to write you a letter, they usually 
have some personal reason for it. I have never gotten a flood of let- 
ters about the foundations inquiry. In fact, I have not gotten a 
letter, and I am not soliciting any either. But being the suspicious- 
minded person I am, I would just like to know more about what moti- 
vated him to write this, who he is, why that is his opinion. So what? 
There are 165 million other people who might have a different opinion. 
So where do we go from there ? 

Mr. Wormser. It is introduced only as his opinion. 

Mr. Hays. He says the board of trustees of a university would be 
better, in a bald statement, to decide what to do with this money. I 
would not want to get into personalities, but I each think of some boards 
of trustees that I would not trust with a $5 bill. I know some of them 
personally, and who appointed them. Maybe I would not trust the 
foundations either, but I would not say it is better without something 
to back it up. If you put this stuff in the record, it has a sort of 
sanctity. It has the force and effect as though it were true. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, the only way you can judge, I suppose, 
is by putting things in the record and weighing them when they are 
in there. 

Mr. Hays. That is all right. Go ahead. I got my observations in 
about them. If I have cast any doubt about it, I am glad. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, I have a memorandum here which 
Miss Casey prepared for Mr. Dodd on the National Education Asso- 
ciation. We would like to introduce it into the record. It is prob- 
ably too lengthy to read. It is 27 pages. Mr. Dodd might identify it, 
and go over its general import, and then I would like you to give us 
permission, if you will, to have it physically incorporated in the 

Mr. Hays. It is a memorandum Miss Casey prepared on what? 

Mr. Wormser. A staff memorandum on the National Education 

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the National Education Associa- 
tion is an extremely important factor, obviously, in the work of the 
foundations in the educational field insofar as it is the organization 
which represents the teachers who ultimately use the work, we sug- 
gest, produced by the foundations in the educational area. 

Mr. Hays. It is not a suspect organization ? . 

Mr. Wormser. How do you mean "suspect" ? 

Mr. Hays. Having any devious motives or subversive influence? 

Mr. Wormser. No, no subversive influence. 

Mr. Hays. I used to belong to it. I want to be sure I do not get 
in trouble here. 

Mr. Wormser. We do think they are subject to your examination 
for various reasons. 

Mr. Hays. I do not mind. They used to take money out of my 
paycheck for membership without asking me. I just wanted to get 
that in, if k "^s a subversive organization. 


The Chairman-. Is that sufficiently identified now ? If so, it would 
not be necessary for Mr. Dodd to identify it further. It is your desire 
that it be submitted for the record. 

Mr. Wormser. I think it ought to be written right into the record 
so you can read it. 

The Chairman. Without objection it will be so ordered. 

Mr. Dodd. May I identify its source, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Dodd. It arises from a study of a volume issued by the associa- 
tion in 1948 entitled, "Education for International Understanding in 
American Schools," with a subtitle "Suggestions and Eecommenda- 
tions." The gist of it, Mr. Chairman, is to ,clarify the important role 
the teacher has to foster two things in this couatry : a development of 
an understanding of international affairs, and, at the same time, the 
teacher must lead the way to a breakdown, so to speak, of our allegi- 
ance to a local or nationalistic viewpoint. 

(The memorandum is as follows :) 

Memorandum to : Mr. Dodd. Mat 5, 1954. 

From : Kathryn Casey. 

Subject : National Education Association. 

One example of foundation support of organizations which display an unusual 
philosophy in their publications is the National Education Association. 

This association has received from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations 
approximately one and a half million dollars (a complete tabulation is available 
by year of grant and nature of project ) . 

In 1948 the association issued a volume entitled "Education for International 
Understanding in American Schools — Suggestions and Recommendations." pre- 
pared by the Committee on International Relations, the Association for Super- 
vision and Curriculum Development, and the National Council for the Social 
Studies — all departments of NEA. The representatives of each of these depart- 
ments on the committee as stated in the front of the book is : 

Representing the Committee on International Relations of the National Educa- 
tion Association : 

Ben M. Cherrington, director, Social Science Foundation, University Denver, 

Rachel Evans Anderson, chairman, Physical Science Department, Andrew 
Jackson High School, New York, N. T. (since September 1947). 

Rufus E. Clement, president, Atlanta University {since September 1947). 

Vanett Lawler, associate executive secretary, Music Educators National 
Conference, and music education consultant, Pan American Union (since 
September 1947). 

William F. Russell, dean, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Howard E. Wilson, associate director, Division of Intercourse and Educa- 
tion, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (since March 1947). 

James T. Shotwell, director, Division of Economics and History, Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace (until September 1948). 
Representing the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, a, 
department of the National Education Association : 

C. O. Arndt, professor of education, New York University. 

Gertrude A. Hankamp, executive secretary, Association for Supervision and 
Curriculum Development. 

Gordon N. Mackenzie, professor of education, and chief, Division of Cur- 
riculum and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Helen Frances Storen, assistant professor of education, Teachers College, 
Columbia University. 
Representing the National Council for the Social Studies, a department of the 
National Education Association : 

Howard R. Anderson, chief, instructional problems, Division of Secondary 
Education, United States Office of Education. 

Merrill F. Harshorn, executive secretary, National Council for the Social 


Erling M. Hunt, professor of history, Teachers College, Columbia University. 
Wallace W. Taylor, professor, and head of social studies, Milne High School, 
New York State College for Teachers, Albany, N. Y. 

The preface signed by "The Committee" states that the book represents the 
consensus of "the committee on the basis of information and opinion from many 
sources during 2 years of investigation and discussion — from April 1946 to April 
1948" (p. v). According to the preface (p. vi), the first question demanding an 
answer was: Why should American schools be concerned with education for 
international understanding? The committee's answer to that question will be 
found in chapter 1 of this report. The second question was : What schools and 
what teachers have the responsibility for educating children and youth for inter- 
national understanding? The committee's answer: All elementary and second- 
ary schools have that responsibility; and every administrator and supervisor 
as well as every teacher of every subject on every grade level shares a part of it. 

Another fundamental question to which the committee and staff devoted ex- 
tended consideration in the early stages of the project was : What should be 
the specific objectives of school programs for international understanding? E'er 
assistance on this point the committee sent letters of inquiry to 300 distinguished 
Americans of wide experience in world affairs, two-thirds of whom replied with 
considered and useful statements. These statements were evaluated by 16 
scholars, journalists, and public officials who met with the committee at Pocono 
Manor, Pa., in January 1947 for a 3-day discussion of the same basic question. 
Ideas obtained from these sources, as revised after review by others and by 
committee discussion, are presented in chapter 2 and elaborated in chapter 3. 

The next question was : How can educational effort be most effectively focused 
on, and most efficiently expended in, the achievement of these agreed-upon objec- 
tives? At this point the help of curriculum experts and classroom teachers was 
solicited. Arrangements were made to have this question given systematic con- 
sideration by experienced teachers enrolled in the 1947 summer sessions of 23 
colleges and universities and 2 city school systems in the United States, and in 
the UNESCO Seminar for Teachers at Sevres, France. Faculty members" repre- 
senting 12 of these 26 cooperating summer schools met with the project staff 
and 3 members of the committee for a 3-day conference in Washington in May 
to make advance plans for the summer program. During June and July staff 
members visited 14 of the summer-school groups to assist them in their work on 
the project and to receive their oral suggestions and written materials. Reports 
from the other 12 summer groups were received by mail. During the spring and 
summer of 1947 additional help was obtained by mail from teachers, supervisors, 
and administrators in all parts of the country. The results of these several 
undertakings are embodied in chapters 4 and 5. 

The preface {page vii) also states: "Original financial support for the project 
was a grant of $13,500 from the National Education Association's war and 
peace fund, a fund established by contributions from many thousands of teacher 
members during 1943-45 in order to enable their association to play a more 
significant role in "winning' the war and securing the peace." A subsequent 
grant of $13,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, in October 1946, 
which permitted a substantial expansion of the scope of the project, is hereby 
acknowledged with deep appreciation. Although funds from the Carnegie Cor- 
poration of New York materially aided the preparation of this report, it should 
be stated that that corporation is not the author, owner, publisher, or proprietor 
of this publication, and is not to be understood as approving by virtue of its 
grant any of the statements made or views expressed therein." 

In addition to stressing the Building America series and UNESCO material 
throughout, the volume contains the following statements : 

In the foreword by Warren Robinson Austin, then United States representative 
at the U. N. he states : "The Assembly of 1947 unanimously passed a resolution 
calling upon the member states of the United Nations to provide for effective 
teaching about the United Nations in the schools. Education for International 
Understanding in American Schools is one appropriate response on the part of 
the American people to the United Nations call. It suggests practical ways and 
means of extending the fine work American teachers have already undertaken 
for international understanding. 

"The United Nations is properly presented as a facility to be used by peoples 
and government, and to be changed by them from time to time to fit their needs, 
not as an isolated institution to deal with problems for which the member 
nations might like to escape responsibility. 


"Through educational processes we must develop a habit of individual think- 
ing about international affairs which will cultivate a sense of public responsibility 
for the success of the United Nations. 

"In my judgment, this involves a more fundamental acquisition of knowledge 
than we have yet gained. To be responsible participants in a United Nations 
world, a citieens roust have a clear and accurate picture of their world as it 
really exists. They must understand, in the fullest sense, the facts which make 
interdependence of nations and peoples basic. They must achieve a vivid sense 
of functional geography, and thus come to recognize that they, as individuals, 
their community, and their country depend upon resources and products from 
every part of the globe. They must understand why it is impossible for any 
group of people to survive long in modern society isolated from others. 

"This, in my judgment, is the foundation stone of international understanding. 

"One of the reasons that education is a precondition of peace in the modern 
world stems from the fact that conflicts are basically caused by contradictions 
between popular conceptions on the one side, and the realities of the 20th century 
on the other side. In the last hundred years, science and technology have radic- 
ally changed the conditions of life and the relationships of peoples. We have 
introduced mass production and specialization and rendered obsolete the old 
handicraft economy. Nation-states must adapt themselves to the changes which 
have taken place through some such machinery as the United Nations. 

"This involves rationalization of production and distribution on a world- 
wide basis. It means, for example, that peoples and nations must learn to 
act cooperatively on such essential matters as employment, expansion of agri- 
culture, health, and trade. Solution of economic problems on a purely national 
basis without regard to the effect of their conduct on other peoples and nations 
breeds economic war. 

* * * * » * * 

"Development of international collaboration is going on at a remarkable 
pace. Witness the cooperative planning of the nations of the Western Hemi- 
sphere, the European recovery program and the steps toward European union, 
and the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International 
Trade Organization on a worldwide basis. 

"All of these and many other activities are limited and inhibited to the 
extent that citizens of the member states cling to obsolete ideas and attitudes 
contrary to the facts of the 20th century. Therefore, the United Nations 
Telies upon education to develop the understandings essential to its successful 
operation. The modern rate of change is so rapid that we cannot content 
ourselves with passing on the old skills and beliefs generation to generation, 

"In carrying forward this task of enlightenment for adaptation to the 
requirements of a changing world, teachers have a vast new reservoir of vital 
informaton in the documentation of the United Nations. Here is a challenge 
to the interpreters — the writers of books, producers of educational films, and 
educational radio— to translate the findings of United Nations organizations 
in terms that can be understood by the average citizen. Without his under- 
standing cooperation, rational plans of political leaders cannot be carried 

"The rapid adaptation of modern people to the potentialities of our times 
can result in knitting them together in such relationships of interdependence 
that peace becomes the only practical condition of existence. The facts are 
on the side of international collaboration. It is the high mission of education 
to teach these facts. If this is done, the youth of today, and succeeding gen- 
erations, will become increasingly competent to unite the strength of nations 
to maintain peace." 


Page 2 : 

"* * * It is no longer possible to draw sharp distinctions between foreign 
and domestic policies, for the decisions on many questions that seem to con- 
cern only the United States and its people now cause serious repercussions 
throughout the world. Our traditional pillars of national self-confidence — 
geographic invulnerability, military supremacy, and economic independence— 
now seem less secure than they once did. The awareness of this changed 
situation is being diffused rapidly and forcibly among our people. It is under- 
standable that- this growing awareness is accompanied Ijy confusion and 


Page 2:' 

•<* * * The United States, in spite of its present position and power, is 
therefore forced to consider the problem of attaining and maintaining peace 
not from the point of Tiew of domestic security and well-being alone but 
also from the point of view of the security and well-being of the world in 

Page 6 : 

"* * * As a first step in this process (establishment of a world order), the 
United Nations has been created. Through its Security Council, every dispute 
that affects the peace of the world can be brought before an international body 
endowed with authority to take all necessary steps for the restraint of aggres- 
sion. Its General Assembly is an international forum for the discussion of all 
matters of international concern. Collaboration among the nations for economic, 
social, and cultural welfare is being organized and given administrative instru- 
ments through the Economic and Social Council and the specialized agencies : the 
International Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Food and 'Agriculture 
Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Trade Organiza- 
tion, the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and others. The fundamental problem of 
formulating standards acceptable to all peoples to guide the relationships of 
groups with one another receives the continuous attention of a Commission on 
Human Rights, 

"The United States has assumed full obligations under the charter and has 
repeatedly declared officially that it regards full participation in United Nations 
activities as a fundamental tenet of its foreign policy. The* creation and opera- 
tion of the United Nations, however, is not the whole answer to the problem." 

Page 7 : 

«* * * The beginning has been made, but it is only a beginning. " Much remains 
to be done and it is this 'much' that is the crux of the challenge that faces Ameri- 
can teachers today. 
'•'*■' * * * * * * 

"Today's problems must be solved by the adults of today. The immediate 
obligation of teachers, therefore, is to act as adults among adults, and to place 
whatever knowledge and ability they have in the service of the. community in, 
an effort to achieve responsible public decisions that will arrest the trends that 
may result in another conflict. Teachers must do more than this. They must 
improve their own grasp of the world's problems and the new relationship of the 
United States to these problems in order to exert a positive and constructive 
influence for peace. 

"The other situation facing the teaching profession today is the long-term one — 
the education of our children. The obligations here are manifold and they 
encompass the needs of the next few years as well as the years beyond. The 
needs of the next few years are of immense importance, for our youth are growing 
up in the midst of crisis. It is therefore imperative that they (our youth) be 
equipped to understand the nature and complexity of problems that surround 
them and that they be trained in the ar^ of judgment that will be ultimately 
reflected in the public decisions that constitute the foundation of official govern- 
mental policies. Since it seems evident that the firm establishment of a world 
organization and the achievement of a world order will be a slow and gradual 
process, the children in our schools will be called upon to sustain, and strengthen, 
this movement and to lend their efforts to its advancement. 

"Teachers, thus, carry a larger responsibility than most of their fellow 
citizens for contributing to the maintenance of enduring peace. More than 
average influence in adult community life can properly be expected of them 
because of their special qualifications of training and professional status. 
And, in addition, they are invested with a unique obligation to influence citi- 
zen action for peace for years to come by reason of their position of leader- 
ship with respect to the younger generation. As citizens, teachers must try 
to give children and youth a chance of survival; as teachers, they must equip 
children and youth to make use of that chance." 

Page 8 : 

«* * * it is more important than ever that teachers recognize the importance 
of educating for international understanding in our elementary and secondary 
schools. This is not to say that the responsibility ends here, for it does not. 
However, it can be said that acceptance of the responsibility to educate our 
children in international understanding is to give them a basic preparation that 
can be utilized in facing the problems that now and will continue to emerge." 

Page 10: 


«* * * if this educational challenge is to be accepted, it must be accepted 
boldly ; that is to say, educators must be prepared to take the matter seriously 
and to embark upon a soberly conceived program with a determination to reach 
the objective. This will certainly involve curriculum revision and the recasting 
of many time-honored educational policies and practices. It is a case in which 
half -measures and lipservice will not be adequate, for if these are the substance 
of the effort, the challenge will go unanswered. 

"This report summons the teaching profession of the United States to unite 
in planning and executing an educational program for a peaceful world." 


Page 11 : 

"The long-range goal of education for international understanding is world 
peace and human welfare, achieved and maintained through a peaceful world 
order operating through international organizations. The immediate purpose 
of such education in the elementary and secondary schools of the United States 
is the development of American citizens who are conscious of their new obli- 
gations to mankind. 

"The measure of success for a school program in international understand- 
ing is the extent to which the young people who are graduated from high school 
after 11, 12, or 13 years of opportunities to grow in international understand- 
ing can demonstrate both individually and in their communities throughout the 
Nation, an ability to think and act as Americans who see beyond the confines 
of their own Nation and its own problems. Such a citizen might be called a 
world-minded American." 

Page 12 : 

"* * * These 16 experts met with the commitees sponsoring the present proj- 
ect for a 3-day conference at Pocono Manor, Pa., January 18-20, 1947. At this 
conference exhaustive discussion was devoted to the question of what the world- 
minded American should know, feel, and do. The names of members at the 
Pocono Conference are given in the acknowledgments. 

"Out of the 200 letters and the 500-page transcript of the proceedings of the 
Pocono conference, the staff and sponsoring committees formulated a series of 
statements designed to identify some of the characteristics of world-mindedness 
toward which school programs in 'education for international understanding' 
might be directed. After criticisms and suggestions from many persons, leading 
to a succession of revisions, a list of 10 marks of the world-minded American 
was agreed upon by the committees. The list is as follows : 

"Marks of the World-Minded American 

"I. The world-minded American realizes that civilization may be imperiled 
by another world war. 

"II. The world-minded American wants a world at peace in which liberty 
and justice are assured for all. 

"III. The world-minded American knows that nothing in human nature makes 
war inevitable. 

"IV. The world-minded American believes that education can become a power- 
ful force for achieving international understanding and world peace. 

"V. The world-minded American knows and understands how people in other 
lands live and recognizes the common humanity which underlies all differences 
of culture. 

"VI. The world-minded American knows that unlimited national sovereignty 
is a threat to world peace and that nations must cooperate to achieve peace and 
human progress. 

"VII. The world-minded American knows that modern technology holds prom- 
ise of solving the problem of economic security and that international coopera- 
tion can contribute to the increase of well-being for all men. 

"VIII. The world-minded American has a deep concern for the well-being 
of humanity. 

"IX. The world-minded American has a continuing interest in world affairs 
and he devotes himself seriously to the analysis of international problems with 
all the skill and judgment he can command. 

"X. The world-minded American acts to help bring about a world at peace in 
whicb 'iberty and justice are assured for all." 


Page 14 : 

"* * * The 10 marks of the world-minded American as stated above in this 
chapter are the goal of education for international understanding toward which 
all teachers of all subjects in American elementary and secondary schools should 
direct their instruction. The fuller meaning of each of these marks is elaborated 
in chapter 3. Instructional problems involved in educating children and youth 
to the attainment of each of the 10 marks, together with suggested learning 
experiences appropriate to each, are considered in chapter 5." 


Page 21 : 

"* * * More recently, the idea has become established that the preservation 
of international peace and order may require that force be used to compel a 
nation to conduct its affairs within the framework of an established world 
system. The most modern expression of this doctrine of collective security is in 
the United Nations Charter." 

Page 31 : 

"* * * The social causes of war are overwhelmingly more important than the 
attitudes and behavior of individuals. If this be true, the primary approach to 
the prevention of war must involve action in the area of social and political 
organization and control. The role of the individual, however, is not unim- 
portant. It must be recognized that individuals do have tendencies toward 
pugnacity and aggression, that they react to frustration, that they respond to 
emotional appeals of aggressive leaders, and that they can develop callousness 
toward violence and human suffering. All these human traits make war more 
possible, but by no means inevitable. The educational problem both in and out of 
school is to assist individuals to recognize their own behavior tendencies and to 
assist them in directing their behavior toward peaceful and other socially 
approved ends." 

Page 34 : 

«* * * While we need not demonstrate the proposition that a world-minded 
American has a deep faith in the power of education generally, something re- 
mains to be said of the power of education as a force for achieving international 
understanding and world peace. Here the matter is mueh broader than formal 
education in American schools. Education for international understanding in- 
volves the use of education as a force for conditioning the will of a people, and 
it comprises the home, the church, the school, and the community. It utilizes 
old techniques and mass media such as the printed word, the cinema, the radio, 
and now television. It involves, too, the efficacy of education for peace as a force 
among all peoples of the world and not merely the United States. 

"In an absolute sense, there is no empirical evidence to prove that education 
can become a powerful force for world peace. It is not, however, necessary to 
have this proof for the world-minded American to place a faith in education as 
an instrument for world peace. We do know that education has contributed 
substantially to the attainment of lesser goals and with this knowledge there is 
reason to believe that education can make a substantial contribution to the 
achievement of this high purpose. 

"It is not enough, however, for the world-minded American to believe that 
simply because education has accomplished certain ends, it can assist in attain- 
ing world peace. Such a belief, if carried no further, rests on a tenuous base of 
assumption that mere exposure to a bombardment of ideas and the completion 
of certain mechanical processes will produce a desired result." 

Page 35 ; 

"* * * The world-minded American believes that the force of education as a 
factor for peace lies in the capacity of the educative process to develop standards 
and values, and to supply knowledge and perception, and from these two to pro- 
duce citizens who understand the necessity and desirability of peace and the role 
they can play in achieving it." 

Page 36 : 

"Education for Peace Through Mass Media 

"World-minded Americans are aware of the tremendous educational potency of 
the media of mass communication — the press, film, and radio. Teachers from 28 
different countries, assembled at Endicott, N. Y., in August 1946 for the World 
Conference of the Teaching Profession, declared : 

"'The influence of the press is limited only by the extent of literacy; the 
radio leaps across national boundaries to inform and inspire all who have ears 


to hear ; the cinema teaches its lessons, wholesome or detrimental, with a power 
and persuasiveness beyond those of the most skillful teachers and the most 
highly organized educational systems. These, and other modern media of mass 
communication, have in the past and may in the future work either with 
teachers or against them in their efforts to develop international understanding.' 

"It is important that the world-minded American develop an ability to dis- 
criminate and analyze what he reads, sees, and hears through these mass 
media. At the same time, he should use these media in promoting the ideal of 
peace and in convincing others of the validity of the objective." 

Page 37 : ■ • . 

"* * * UNESCO is devoted to formulating and carrying out on a world-wide 
scale a positive program for promotion of international understanding through 

Page 37 : 

"* * * UNESCO offers a direct means through which the power of education 
may be channeled for the gradual achievement of its overall objective. There 
has seldom been an opportunity of this kind offered to the people of the world. 
It behooves the world-minded American to know what UNESCO is and what 
it is attempting to do. Having discovered this, he should lend his efforts to 
its support. Every person has a part to play in promoting the purposes of 
UNESCO, but because of the nature of the job to be done an extraordinarily 
large responsibility rests upon members of the teaching profession." 

Page 44 : 

"The World-Minded American Believes that Unlimited National Sovereignty 

Is a Threat to World Peace and that Nations Must Cooperate to Achieve 

Peace and Human Progress 

"* * * The nation-state system has been in existence for about three centuries. 
Although serious attempts have been made by many of the nations during this 
period to establish permanent peace on a worldwide basis, all such attempts 
have failed. The nation-state system has not been able to the present time to 
abolish wars. Many persons believe that enduring peace cannot be achieved so 
long as the nation-state system continues as at present constituted. It is a 
system of international anarchy — a species of jungle warfare. Enduring peace 
cannot be attained until the nation-states surrender to a world organization 
the exercise of jurisdiction over those problems with which they have found 
themselves unable to deal singly in the past. If like conditions continue in the 
future as in the past, like situations will arise. Change the conditions, and 
the situations will change." 

Page 45 : 

"* * * Unfortunately man did not attain peace through the nation-state 
system on a worldwide basis. 

"So long as these narrow nationalistic ideas continue to be held by many 
people in all nations today, there is a threat to peace. 

Page 46 : 

"The Society of Nations Today 

"We are likely to take the present nation-state system for granted ; but in so 
doing, we are likely to overestimate its permanence and underestimate its 
significance. A study of the development of nation-states in world history 
raises the possibility that since the society of nations is only three centuries 
old, the system is not necessarily permanent but may be only a stage in the evolu- 
tion of political groups. On the other hand, since we are faced today with the 
actuality of some 60 independent, sovereign political entities, recognition must 
be given to the difficulty of reconciling the objectives of their foreign policies. 
Attempts to bring about world cooperation in trade, social welfare, control of 
armaments, and education are blocked by nations who are either too selfish or 
too unenlightened to be willing to cooperate. Since collective action by states 
frequently calls for unanimity to achieve a desired goal, the failure of one of 
the powers to cooperate will block the attempt. World organizations derive 
their strength from the voluntary participation and support given by the 
member nations." 

Page 53 : 

"* * * Role of public opinion : Some knowledge of governmental structure is 
of particular importance in understanding the role of public opinion in foreign 
policy, for in democratic countries, the public is ultimately the judge of all gov- 
ernmental actions. In these countries, therefore, the public will be the ultimate 
arbiter of the issue of peace or war. 


"In our own country, there is and there will always he a gap between the 
formulation and execution of policy by the Government and its scrutiny by the 
public except on major issues. This is true because issues arise from day to 
day that require action within the framework of established policy. Some- 
times these day-to-day operations create new policy. The point is that except 
on matters involving treaties, appropriations, and appointments, there is no 
constitutional requirement that the public or Congress be consulted, and in 
many cases it is doubtful if this could be done even if it were required. 

"Our system is one in which the public can, does, and should express its 
opinions through established means, thereby affecting the course of foreign 
policy. In many matters, the Congress has a significant voice and the public 
has a full opportunity to bring its judgment to bear. In others, the pubac has 
the role of approval or disapproval after a course of action has been embarked 
upon. , 

"There is one characteristic of our system that does not obtain in many other 
democracies — the pressure group. These are individuals or groups devoted to 
special pleading of all types and trained in the art of influencing legislation. 
They are often very influential in determining the course of govermental 

"In parliamentary systems, much the same situation obtains. It may be 
said, however, that in some parliamentary systems, notably the British system, 
official conduct of policy is even more responsive to public opinion than in the 
United States since the group in control of the Government may be more easily 
deposed from office. 

"In totalitarian countries, there is the facade of popular control of government ; 
but with opposition carefully controlled and representative bodies carefully 
chosen, there is seldom if ever any decision except approval of what the leaders 
desire. This may not always be the case, however, and it behooves the world- 
minded American to give some attention to the role of public opinion in totali- 
tarian states." 

Page 54 : 

"International Organization 

"The world-minded American is deeply concerned with the problem of how 
world organizations can be made to work most effectively — how they can be used 
to gain big ends as well as little ones — above all, how the United Nations can be 
made to contribute maximally to world peace and human progress. And his 
concern for these matters is not confined to feeling and wishing ; he also studies 
them and does what he can to contribute to the success of the United Nations 
and other international organizations." 

"* * * The demonstration of the feasibility of international organization in 
nonpolitical fields and the failure of the League of Nations makes even more clear 
the fact that it is in the area of 'political' organization where failure seems to be 
consistent. This suggests that the difficulty may be traceable to the dogma of 
unlimited sovereignty — that nothing. must be allowed to restrict the complete 
independence of the state. It suggests also that the dogma of sovereignty has a 
high emotional content that is self-generated and self-sustained and that so long 
as the dogma of illimitability obtains, international cooperation of a political 
nature will at best be tenuous." 

Page 60 : 

"* * * The development of international cooperation as a contributing force 
to economic well-being is possible only insofar as it is applied to give direction 
to common positive aims and to condition the effects of national economic policies 
that would otherwise be serious disruptions of the interdependent world 

Page 62 : 

"International Cooperation for Economic Well-Being 

"* * * And we cannot hope to achieve the objective of an increase of well-being 
for all men without planned economic cooperation on a worldwide scale. This 
proposition has already been accepted by most of the nations of the world and 
is the establishment of new means to effect cooperation. The most 
notable of these are the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and 
certain specialized agencies : The International Monetary Fund, the International 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Food and Agriculture Organiza^ 
tion, the International Labor Organization, and the International Trade Organ- 
ization which is now in the process of being formed. The world-minded Amer- 


ican realizes this cardinal proposition, but he realizes, too, that in order to 
translate it into action, he must understand the meaning of 'planned cooperation,' 
the purposes for which the new organizations have been established, and the 
extent to which they can contribute to the attainment of the objectives. 

" 'Planned cooperation' in the economic field needs some definition. It is not 
simply a matter of many nations doing something together for the whole economic 
system. The world economic system is so complex that there are many areas 
in which better results may be obtained by not planning. It is, in large measure, 
a question of determining 'what' and 'when.' Planned cooperation is therefore 
a deliberate cooperative effort in the economic areas in which a careful study of 
the problems and circumstances will give better results than no planning." 

Page 66 : 

"* * * Educators as well as our youth, if they are to be world-minded have a 
considerable obligation in achieving this particular mark of world-mindedness. 
They will support the present efforts being made toward cooperative solution of 
world economic problems. But to do this intelligently they must first make a 
concerted effort to understand economic forces and economic complexities. They 
can then assess the role of American economic foreign policy ; they can then 
judge its validity in terms of the contribution it will make to the attainment of 
the eventual goal. They can also then lend a more intelligent support to the 
international efforts now being undertaken." 

Page 78 : 

"Awareness of Techniques and Channels of Action 

"* * * The American citizen can bring his personal influence directly to bear 
on international affairs in ways * * * and he can become an active member of 
one or more nongovernmental international organizations." 

Page 80 : 

"* * * An individual can increase his effectiveness in influencing foreign 
policy by associating himself with organizations and by helping to formulate 
their attitudes on international questions. The groups most suitable for this 
purpose are the political party and those generally called pressure groups." 
Page 81: 

"* * * The world-minded American, as a part of his program of action, should 
concern himself with how these groups operate. He will find that he himself 
can probably have a greater influence through this technique. He will also find 
that since a great deal of official action is determined by pressure group action, 
the use of this device will enable him to be heard and will also enable him to 
urge his interest for peace against those he considers to be urging a contrary 
interest. He will find that the variety and interest of the groups with which 
he can affiliate are endless ; and he must, therefore, examine carefully the aims 
of the group or groups to which he will devote his energies." 

Page 82 : 

"* * * Teachers must act. As citizens, their obligation to act on behalf of 
peace and international cooperation is a responsibility shared with all other 
citizens. But teachers cannot be content merely to do just as much as others ; 
they must do more. Teachers in almost any American community have greater 
competence in leadership skills and in knowledge than most of their fellow 
citizens. With greater capacity goes greater responsibility for bringing personal 
influence to bear on civic action on the local, State, and National levels." 



Page 83 : 

" * * * Responsibility of the school : What is the responsibility of American 
schools for comprehensive program planning focused on the goal of international 
understanding? The urgency and the magnitude of the world crisis that 
now confronts the world's people make it mandatory that every person and 
institution devote maximum efforts toward building the foundations of peace. 
This means that schools must assume responsibility for helping all children, 
youth, and adults to have experiences which will advance understanding of 
international affairs and which will aid them in recognizing the significance of 
decisions in which they share, either directly or indirectly. This comprehensive 
approach is necessary in order that the entire population, young and old, may 
have experiences which will aid them to become increasingly effective world- 
minded citizens. 


"To involve all citizens, a program in the field of international understanding 
must move beyond the conventional school-community relationships and organi- 
zations. In many communities economic and social groups are already at 
work on programs designed to increase understanding of international prob- 
lems. The school, as a public agent, should seek to coordinate such efforts 
in order that the total Impact of community thinking may be brought to bear 
on major issues. Such a role brings the school into working contact with those 
agencies in the community which are keyed to action, thus helping youth to 
function directly with adults and community agencies. By such procedure, 
too, the danger is lessened that the schools may remain ideological islands in a 
culture in which decisions are based on values remote from those taught in the 

Page 91: 

"» * * How can schools organize to assume their responsibility? 

"Some of the elements and major tasks of developing a program of education 
for international understanding have been delineated in the preceding pages. 
The problem of organizing schools, school systems, and school-community rela- 
tions must yet be considered. The principles and procedures suggested in the 
paragraphs which follow are not peculiar to the field of international under- 
standing ; they apply to any curriculum area." 

Pages* 92-98.: 

"Faculty planning. 

"Community participation. 

"Teaching aids and procedures. 

"Student participation. 

"Individual teacher initiative. 

"Administration and supervision." 

Page 98: 

«* * * rpjjg. administrative officials, together with the interschool planning 
committee, should develop such guiding principles as the following: 

"The school system is committed to the task of educating for international 
understanding, which is recognized as an integral part of the total curriculum 
program. The task takes its place with other imperatives in the school program. 

"Each established part of the school system is involved. 

"An interdepartmental planning committee in each school is desirable for the 
purpose of releasing and coordinating individual school developments. 

"Bach school is encouraged to develop individual programs as effectively and 
rapidly as possible. 

"An interschool planning committee exists for the purpose of interchange 
of information and stimulation. Individual school-planning committees may 
pool ideas through it and thus move toward more effective general school-system 

Page 1005 : 

"The School in Community Organization for World Understanding 

"The last chapter, VI, is entitled 'Aids and Sources,' and has four sections : 

"Readings on the 10 marks of the world-minded American. 

"Reading materials especially for pupils. 

"Films and nlmstrips. 

"Continuing sources." 

On page 217, under the first of these sections, it is stated : 

"Readings on the 10 Marks of the World-Minded American 

"This section is devoted largely to books and pamphlets, but a few magazine 
articles are also listed. Items in this bibliography have been selected with two 
criteria in mind : Authoritativeness and representativeness. Authors of works 
cited are in nearly all cases recognized authorities in their respective special 
fields. Readings listed have been chosen to represent different points of view 
and different facets of each of the 10 marks. No title is cited more than once in 
this 10-part bibliography ; for, even though many of the references might con- 
tribute to understanding of 2 or more marks, each is classified under the mark 
to which it can make its most distinctive contribution. All readings in this 
section are written on the adult level and may, therefore, be expected to be of 
most usefulness to teachers, but many of them may also be used profitably by 
secondary-school students. 


"The books and pamphlets have not all been checked, because of the limitation 
of time, but a casual glance reveals such names as Manley O. Hudson, Philip C. 
Jessup, W. E. B. DuBois, Max Lerner, Alvin H. Hansen, Stuart Chase, Commis- 
sion to Study the Organization of the Peace (Eichelberger), Maxwell S. Stewart, 
Mortimer Adler, Lowell Mellett, Joseph Kise as well as pamphlets from U. N. 
and the Foreign Policy Association, Institute of International Education, the 
Public Affairs Committee, and World Peace Foundation. 

"In a section headed 'Acknowledgments' at the end of the book, these names 

"Chandoe Reid of the Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimenta- 
tion, Teacher's College, Columbia University, E. U. Condon, Vera Micheles Dean, 
Frank Fleming, Donald Stone, Quincy Wright, Harry Bard, David Adler. 

"In addition, Willard E. Givens, under the title 'Education for the New 
America' in the proceedings of the 72d annual meeting of the National Educa- 
tional Association, is quoted as follows : 

" 'This report comes directly from the thinking together of more than 1,000 
members of the department of superintendence * * *. 

" 'A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including 
the "owners," must be subjected to a large degree of social control. A large 
section of our discussion group, accepting the conclusions of distinguished stu- 
dents, maintain that in our fragile, interdependent society the credit agencies, 
the basic industries, and utilities cannot be centrally planned and operated under 
private ownership. 

" 'Hence they will join in creating a swift nationwide campaign of adult educa- 
tion which will support President Roosevelt in taking these over and operating 
them at full capacity as a unified national system in the interests of all of the 
people. * * *' 

"Mr. Givens became executive secretary of NEA in 1935 and remained in that 
post until 1952 according to Who's Who. Briefly he has a 'diploma' from Union 
Theological Ssminary, A. M. from Columbia, was a fellow of Educational Insti- 
tute of Scotland 1947, was a member of the American Youth Commission of the 
American Council on Education, member of Educational Policies Commission of 
American Academy of Political and Social Science, member of United States 
education mission to Japan, 1946, Board of Visitors, Air University, 1946-50; 
member, combined Armed Forces educational program, 1949-53; chairman, Na- 
tional Conference for Mobilization of Education, 1950 ; chairman, second United 
States educational mission to Japan, 1950. 

"This organization began back in 1865 as the National Association of School 
Superintendents, and 1870 became one of the four original departments of the 
NEA. Under the act of incorporation (1906) it was called the department of 
superintendence, and in 1921 was reorganized with a full-time executive secre- 
tary at NEA headquarters. In 1937 the department adopted a revised constitu- 
tion and bylaws, and its name was changed to the American Association of School 
Administrators. According to the NEA Handbook, 1953-54, it has a membership 
of 8,700" (p. 290). 

Mr. Wormser. That is all we have to offer you today, Mr. Chair- 
man. Mr. Dodd has been on the stand almost 2 hours. 

The Chairman. There may be some questions. 

Mr. Hays. I have a whole series of questions. I hope they will not 
take as long as Senator McCarthy is taking with Mr. Stevens. I 
think I can do it in an hour or less. I think in view of the fact that it 
is almost time for the House to go into session we might defer them 
until the morning. I can start. 

The Chairman. We do have 15 minutes, but that is entirely with the 
convenience of the committee. 

Then if agreeable we will resume Tuesday morning, concluding with 
Mr. Dodd, and then having the other witnesses v So we will tentatively 
schedule the hearing for the Public Works Committee room on Tues- 
day, at 10 o'clock. The committee will be adjourned. 

(Thereupon at 11:55 a. m., a recess was taken, the committee to 
reconvene in the Public Works Committee room, on Tuesday, May 18, 
1954, at 10 a.m.) 


TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1954 

House or Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate 

Tax-Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D.-C; 

The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 429 of the House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chair- 
man of the special committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece (presiding), Hays, Goodwin, and 

Also present: Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst; and John Marshall, Jr., chief clerk of the special com- 

The Chairman. The committee wilj come to order. 

I think Mr. Dodd remained to be questioned. 

Will you take the witness chair, Mr. Dodd ? 

Mr. .Wormser. Before Mr. Dodd starts, may we introduce a com- 
posite copy of the Cox committee record and their report? I cer- 
tainly hope it does not need to be reprinted, but I think it ought to 
be part of our record. 

The Chairman. It is submitted to be a part of the record but not 
for printing, you mean ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. 

The Chairman. I see no objection to that. Without objection, it 
will be accepted. 

(The documents referred to are on file with the committee.) 


The Chairman. Congressman Hays had some questions he wanted 
to ask you. . 

Mr. Hays. The record will show that Mr. Dodd is still under oath ; 
is that right ? 

The Chairman. Oh, yes. I am assuming that is the case. That 
is the case, is it not, Mr. Wormser? 

Mr. Wormser. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Dodd, I would like to ask you if you prepared the 
statement that you made to this committee on Monday and Tuesday, 
May 10 and 11? 

Mr. Dodd. Did I prepare it, Mr. Hays ? 



Mr. Hays. Yes. Did you prepare it ? 
Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir ; I prepared it, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Do you have a copy of that statement in front of you ? 
Mr. Dodd. I have. 

Mr. Hays. You may want to refer to it. 

Mr. Dodd. I have a mimeographed copy right here, Mr. Hays. 
Mr. Hays. On page 14 of the prepared statement, you said, and I 

We have used the scientific method and included both inductive and deductive 
reasoning as a check against the possibility that a reliance upon only one of these 
might lead to an erroneous set of conclusions. 

Is that true? 

Mr. Dodd. That is true, sir. 

Mr. Hays. In the foreword of the same document, you expressed 
the hope that your research report would be determined by this com- 
mittee, the foundations, and the public to be ''constructively critical," 
and I quote the last two words, is that true ? 

Mr. Dodd. That was my hope ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. The research report which you presented was your per- 
sonal report based on the work of the research staff under your direc- 
tion, is that true? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Conclusions of your report are presented therefore and 
represent your personal honest conclusions as to the results of the 
research work done under your direction ? 

Mr. Dodd. In a descriptive sense, yes, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. You have not by omission or alteration set forth these 
conclusions in any way so as to mislead this committee or the public 
with respect to your findings ? 

Mr. Dodd. On the contrary, I have done everything that I could 
do to make it helpful to the committee. 

Mr. Hays. I have some notes being typed up which I thought would 
be here by this time. I have been a little handicapped by not hav- 
ing a complete staff, and there are two quotations in those notes that 
I would like to read to you from your report. Perhaps I can find 
them before the girl gets here. 

While I am waiting for that, looking for that, have you been able 
to get together with the staff on a definition of what you mean by 
pro-American yet ? 

Mr. Dodd. I have, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Could we have that definition at this point ? 

Mr. Dodd. A working definition for this purpose would to me be 
that which fosters and furthers the principles and the form of the 
United States Government and the constitutional 'means set forth 
to change those principles. 

In other words, it would be the reverse of the definition which we 
used as to what was un-American. 

The Chairman. And the institutions under which we have pros- 
pered for some 160 years. 

Mr. Dodd. I have confined it entirely to the Government, for work- 
ing purposes, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. Well, that is merely a working definition, so that we 
have it in there when we talk about this term and we will have a 
general idea what is meant by it. 


Mr. Dodd. I would like to feel that we were very specific in that 
sense and we knew that we didn't mean something else. 

The Chairman. While you are waiting, would you permit an in- 
terjection ? 

Mr. Hays. Surely. 

The Chairman. I might ask, Mr. Dodd, if any efforts to influence 
you or the research staff have been made by the chairman or, for 
that matter, any other member of the committee ? 

Mr. Dodd. On the contrary, sir, I know of no such efforts to in- 
fluence, if I understand the word "influence." 

Mr. Hays. I might ask a question right there which is brought to 
my mind. Have you had very much direction from the chairman or any 
member of this committee in the way your research would go? I 
mean, have you been told what general lines to follow, or have you 
just, more or less, gone on your own ? 

Mr. Dodd! I think it has been <a matter «£e«mpflete i freedom of ex- 
change, and keeping the chairman absolutely informed, Mr. Hays. 

The Chairman. But has not the chairman, from the very beginning, 
advised the staff, as he so advised the committee, that his hope was that 
the study of this committee would be completely objective m an effort 
to draw a picture of the w T hole foundation question for the benefit of 
the Congress and the people in the years to come ? 

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, everybody with whom I have had con- 
tact in this has taken that exact stand. 

Mr. Hays. I thought I would have these questions typed. But in 
the meantime I can ask you a couple of others and then we will go back 
to this original group. 

I have here an editorial from the New York Herald Tribune of 
Saturday, May 15, and I will quote you a statement. It says : 

The assumption seems to be — 

referring to these hearings — 

The assumption seems to be that there is a public interest or an American, 
idea or an accepted body of dogma to which the facts must be made to conform 
in these hearings. 

Now, do you take that attitude, that there is a definitely outlined 
public interest, and this is in quotes "or an American idea," or an 
accepted body of dogma that all things must conform to or else they 
are not in the public interest, and un-American ? 

Mr. Dodd. No, sir. I felt, Mr. Hays, that there was an accepted 
body of principles which were traditionally American to which these 
facts, as they unfolded, should be related. It is not made to conform, 
if I understand what you mean correctly. 

Mr. Hays. You say that you think there is an American body of 
principles. That is a kind of vague term. I do not exactly know 
what you mean by that. Could you define that a little more ? 

Mr. Dodd. I can define it by describing exactly how we approached 
this matter. 

Starting with the obligations set forth in the resolution, it seemed to 
me that the committee was obliged to look over a set of facts against 
a background of those elements which were used as the basis for a 
definition, as to what was un-American or subversive. 

Now, that working definition referred us to the Constitution and a 
set of principles. Only to that extent do I believe that there is a de- 
finable basis against which these facts must be looked at. 

49720— 54— pt. 1-^6 


Mr. Hays. The reason I am so careful about this series of ques- 
tions is that I want them to be exact because there is a considerable 
principle involved here, Mr. Dodd. 

Mr. Dodd. We have tried to be very exact, too, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. Well, that will come. 

Now, I will repeat this question No. 6, 1 am sure that I am just doing 
this in order to get back on the track, because question No. 7 that I am 
going to ask you is the key question. 

Number six, have yon not by omission or alteration set forth these 
conclusions in any way so as to mislead the committee or the public 
with respect to your findings? 

Mr. Dodd. No, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Your answer was "No, sir"? 

Mr. Dodd. That is right; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Dodd, I received several copies of your mineo- 
graphed statement which you distributed publically last week. I was 
amazed to find that these include two significantly different versions of 
your public testimony. I just got a group of your first day's hearings, 
and I was going over them, and the thing did not seem to be exactly 
the same, and I got to comparing it more closely. 

Upon close examination, it appeared to me that one version has been 
clearly edited and changed from the other. 

Now, under oath, you just said that you had made no omissions or 
conclusions which might mislead the committee. I have not had time 
to analyze all of the variations between the 2 editions of the report, 
both of which you say set forth your conclusions of 8 months' study. 

Mr. Dodd. May I ask a question, Mr. Hays? 

Mr. Hays. Let me finish this. 

But I find, for example, this specific omission which would appear 
to have been made solely for the purpose of deleting a conclusion of 
your study, which would have been favorable to foundations. 

Specifically, on page 10 of the undoctored version, you conclude 
that foundations' grants were not directly responsible for an alleged 
deterioration in the standards of American scholarships. The actual 
words used in the undoctored version, with reference to the purported 
deterioration, were : 

Cannot be said to have been due directly to foundation grants. 

On page 9, with reference to the charge of favoritism in the un- 
doctored version, you conclude that — 

We analyzed thoroughly, what was favoritism in the mind of the critic seems to 
have been litle more than a reasonable response to circumstances. 

Now, here is the question : Is it true that both of these favorable con- 
clusions were deleted in the version which you subsequently gave to 
this committee on Tuesday, not having, as you said then, a mimeo- 
graphed statement ready, and which you presented to the press? 

Mr. Dodd. To the best of my knowledge, as I sit here right now, 
both of those conclusions are in the report. 

Mr. Hays. They are in the report that you gave to the committee on 
Tuesday ? 

Mr. Dodd. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir, as I sit here now, 
because they were a definite part of it. 


Mr. Hays. Let me ask you this, Mr. Dodd: Are there two separate 
and distinct mimeographed statements that you purported to have 


Mr. Dodd. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Not to your knowledge? 

Mr. Dodd. No. The mimeographed report, Mr. Hays, that I have 
here is 

Mr. Hats. I have in my hand, Mr. Dodd, two reports, with the 
same cover sheet on them. They are starting out with page i, and with 
an identical foreword, and that is page ii, it is identical. Then we com© 
to page 1, part 1, page 1, and they are identical. And page 2 seems to 
be identical. Page 3 seems to be identical. Pages 4 and 5 are identical. 

But we come over to page 6, and there are several deletions. The 
two things do not read the same. And from page 6 on, you cannot 
compare them because what is page 6 on one, on the Cox Committee 
criticisms, and that goes on for 3 pages in the undoctored version, is 
all on 1 page in the doctored version. 

Mr. Dodd. I can only answer it this way, Mr. Hays, that those are 
two of our findings, and were reported by me. Those two findings 
are as you have expressed them. 

Mr. Hats. Well, Mr. Dodd, is it or is it not true that these conclu- 
sions that I have read were cropped out of the document you read 
to this committee ? * - 

Mr. Dodd. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. Hats. They were not? 

Mr. Dodd. No. 

Mr. Hats. Well, we will have to go into thS actual hearings. But 
the version^ which purported to be the version that came to me on 
Tuesday is not the same as the one I got by accident when I asked 
for some extra copies, apparently. 

The Chairman. Will you yield? I would assume that you had 
various working memoranda and data preliminary to reaching the 
final draft which you actually presented to the committee. Ordi- 
narily that would be the case. I do not know whether it was in this 
particular instance or not. 

Mr. Dodd. There were many working papers, Mr. Chairman, out 
of which I distilled this report, sir, and the 2 conclusions to which 
Mr. Hays makes reference are practically engraved in my memory, 
because they are two conclusions, that you cannot hold foundations 
responsible directly for this supposed deterioration in scholarship, 
and the other one is that this charge of favoritism, while it is 
understandable how it grew up, does not appear to me to be. anything 
more than just what Mr. Hays read, an understandable and logical 
response to circumstances. I can understand how the criticism 
grew up. 

Mr. Hats. Well, Mr. Dodd, if you recall last Monday, I was very 
much surprised, as was the chairman apparently, and I am sure the 
press must have been, to find that there were no mimeographed copies 
of your statement. You read, as T recall it, your statement from a 
looseleaf notebook. 

Mr. Dodd. I did, sir, and I read it just as you saw me read it, from 
my own carbon copy. 


Mr. Hays. Do you mean to tell me that you do not have any knowl- 
edge of the fact that there was a mimeographed statement like this 
prepared and then another one which are significantly different? 

Mr. Dodd. I don't know of any two mimeographed statements, one 
of which contained that statement and another one which did not. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I have a copy of each one which came up from 
the committee office, and they are mimeographed obviously on the 
s;ame mimeograph machine, if we have to go into that. 

Mr. Dodd. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Hays, I personally have 
spent and concentrated entirely on the content of the report and the 
mechanics of it, I have not 

Mr. Hays. I thought there was a little something funny about it 
the other day, about the fact there was no mimeographed statement, 
and the thing sort of began to add up in my mind when I found these 
two different statements. I thought perhaps that it had been decided 
that you would not present your statement, but would change it. 

Now, was there any editing done at any time prior to your 
appearance here ? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir ; there was editing done. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, may I interrupt? 

Mr. Hays. I want to ask Mr. Dodd, and then, Mr. Wormser, if you 
want to go under oath and have me ask you some questions I will. 
But I want to get to the bottom of who edited that and when, 

Mr. Dodd. All right, sir. 

Mr. Hays. That is what I am interested in right now. Can you tell 
me on what day and hour these changes were made, Mr. Dodd ? 

Mr. Dodd. I don't look upon them as specific changes, Mr. Hays, but 
Mr. Wormser and I first went over this report on Thursday morning, 
which would have been 10 days ago. I was in the process of editing it 
and tightening it up, but that was a normal editing piece of work. 

Mr. Hays. That was not done after it was mimeographed ? 

Mr. DooDi No, sir.. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, may I just suggest that Miss Casey can 
explain. Mr. Dodd does not know the circumstances. And if you will 
trade, for a moment, Miss Casey for Mr. Dodd, she will explain the 
mechanics of what happened. 

Mr. Hays. If you can put somebody on the stand who can explain 
this, I will be glad to have him do it. 

The Chairman. May I interject an amplifying question, Wayne? 

During the period that you were formulating this statement and 
making the various changes which led up to the final draft, did you 
have any important consultation with anyone other than the members 
of the committee and the members of the staff involved ? 

Mr. Dodd. None, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hays. Before you leave the stand temporarily, Mr. Dodd, I 
want to make clear what I am trying to get at. I have gone over this. 
You say that this purports to be your conclusions, after long months 
of study. The one version has two very significant statements in it 
that the other does not. And whatl am driving at is : How after long 
months of study can you suddenly throw out these two important con- 
clusions ? 

Mr. Dodd. I can readily understand the importance of the question, 
Mr. Hays. This report, if you will recall, at the committee meeting, 
was my effort to describe for the benefit of the committee the nature of 


the work done, a description of its own findings in general terms, and 
the direction in which the facts tended to point. 

That was the purpose of this report, and that report in my estima- 
tion should have had in it everything significant to be helpful to the 

Now, the two questions and the two statements to which you make 
reference have in my judgment been an important aspect of it all 

Mr. Hays. Then you would say that you want in that the conclu- 
sion that foundation grants are not directly responsible for any deteri- 
oration in the standards of American scholarships ? 

Mr. Dodd. That is my feeling, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. And you want in there, also, with reference to the pur- 
ported deterioration, that it cannot be said to have been due directly 
to foundation grants? 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir. And the other has to do with this inferred criti- 
cism of favoritism. 

Mr. Hays. All right. 

I would like to have whoever can explain these two mimeographed 
versions to take the stand, and I would like to ask some questions 
about it. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

Miss Casey. I do. 


Mr. Hays. Miss Casey, do you have any knowledge of two different 
mimeographed versions of Mr. Dodd's statement? 

Miss Casey. Yes, I do, may I explain 

Mr. Hays. Yes. I would like in your own words to have you tell 

us about it. . 

Miss Casey. Well, at the time the hearings were set and it was de- 
cided that Mr. Dodd would present a staff report, it was thought that 
we should have mimeographed copies available. When the report was 
I thought close to its final draft, I will have to confess I jumped the 
gun and had the stencils cut. We ran 

Mr. Hays. Right there, when was that? Can you give us an exact 
date of it? 

Miss Casey. It was only Friday and Saturday, because we had 
quite a bit of difficulty getting the copies done by the duplicating office 
here in the Capitol. 

Mr. Hays. That was Friday and Saturday, prior to Mr. Dodd's 
appearance on Monday? 

Miss Casey. That is right. No distribution was made, and not even 
to the members of the committee. 

Mr. Hays. I am aware of that. 

Miss Casey. One reason Mr. Hays, was, that we were at the office 
until midnight Saturday, and I thought perhaps your office might be 

Mr. Hays. I am sure it was. If it was not, it should have been. 


Miss Casey. I think ours should have been, too. I am sure the girls 
in the office thought so. But on Monday morning it developed 
there was going to be a slight rearrangement on one tiling, after Mr. 
Dodd and Mr. Wormser had again gone over it. So new stencils were 
cut on certain pages, and page numbers changed on the others. 

But in reference to what you are talking about, which appears, I 
believe, first on page 2, at the top of the page of the final report, it says : 

Simultaneously, I undertook additional studies — 

I believe this is what you read — 

to the validity of the criticism leveled against the work done by the Cox com- 
mittee, to substantiate or disprove the prevalent charge that foundations were 
guilty of favoritism. 

But, Mr. Hays, if you turn over to pages 9 and 10 — the reference to 
foundation criticism starts at the bottom of page 8- ■ 

Mr. Hats. That is 9 and 10 of which version now % 

Miss Casey. This is the only version that was distributed. 

Mr. Hays. The distributed version? 

Miss Casey. Yes, sir, and let us call it the final version, because the 
other was' a draft. 

Mr. Hays. All right. 

Miss Casey. And for which I will take full responsibility, as far as 
the duplication is concerned. 

The Chairman. It was primarily an effort to be helpful to the 
members of the committee and the members of the press f 

Miss Casey. That is right. 

Mr. Hays. Miss Casey, right there, now we have got this thing 
pinned down pretty well, and you mimeographed these on Friday 
and Saturday. And now when were the changes made ? 

Miss Casey. The changes' were made when Mr. Wormser and Mr. 
Dodd met on Monday. Actually, Mr. Hays, they were not "changes" 
such as you say. If you will turn to pages 8, 9, and 10, the statement 
which I read before, from page 2, is elaborated in the same way that 
you found it in the next to final draft. That is on pages 8, 9, and 10, 
Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. Do you have any completely assembled versions, like the 
one I have, of the original, before it was cut ? 

Miss Casey. No, sir, everything, including the stencils were de- 
stroyed, and every copy of that was taken to the incinerator, so that 
there would be no possibility 

Mr. Hays. Every copy was not, because I have one. 

The Chairman - . Every copy so far as you knew ? 

Miss Casey. It was my understanding that every copy had been sent 
to the incinerator— taken there personally by a staff member. 

Mr. Hays. Now, I think we could argue indefinitely about whether 
changes have been made, but in order to get the record straight, would 
you have any objection, Mr. Eeece and Mr. Goodwin, to making this 
undistributed version a part of the record, just so we can compare the 

The Chairman. My own feeling is that the director of research who 
submitted his statement should be advised on that, as well as the 
general counsel. 

As I analyze this thing, this situation, Mr. Dodd is the director of 
resarch and he had an initial and primary responsibility for digesting 


and putting this into written form for presentation to the committee, 
and he made numerous notes and drafts. 

He had made, after consulting with his assistants, what he thought 
was essentailly a final draft for presentation to the committee. But 
at that time, he had not consulted with the general counsel or the as- 
sistant general counsel with reference to the exact wording of part of 
the report, and they also have a responsibility, 

Over the weekend that consultation was : had among themselves, 
that is, among the members of the staff, and certain modifications were 
made, as Miss Casey states, in some instances something was taken out, 
and it is amplified in another part of the report. 

It seems to me like a prefectly logical way to develop a statement 
for a committee, that is, for the members of the staff to consult among 
themselves. They have stated, even under the affirmation of an oath, 
that they did not consult with anybody, any outside interests, as to 
what this preliminary presentation to the committee might obtain. 

So far as I am personally concerned, I have no objection for their 
work notes and preliminary drafts to go into the record. But I do not 
feel that it is the logical way to proceed with a presentation. 

That is my reaction to it. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I had to come in late. 
As a matter of fact, I would have been here when the gavel fell, as 
you know, except for the fact that I felt I ought to be up in the Armed 
Services Committee to help save for the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts a facility which we believe is very important to us. 

So I am a little lost to know what is going on here. Apparently, 
the question is whether or not there should be put into the record 
preliminary drafts of a certain statement, is that it ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. Do I understand that it is a fact that the preliminary 
drafts show some change of heart, or change of mind on somebody f s 

Mr. Hats. I would say not that 

Mr. Goodwin. I should not press that question. 

Mr. Hats. Go ahead and press it. 

Mr. Goodwin. It is in my mind that if this is something simply 
cumulative, and if what my distinguished friend from Ohio now wants 
to put into the record is something cumulative and will be of no value 
to us in the future, I should think that it should be kept out. 

If, however, it states a frame of mind on somebody's part who is 
going to have a portion of the responsibility of directing this investi- 
gation, it seems to me that it might be well that we should have it. 

The Chairman. Would you permit Miss Casey— — 

Miss Casey. Mr. Goodwin, may I say this: That your first state- 
ment about it being cumulative is more accurate than any change of 

Actually, it is merely a rearrangement that was agreed on, and a 
particular statement on page 2 is not elaborated. Mr. Dodd's report 
said to "substantiate the prevalent charge that foundations were guilty 
of favoritism in the making of educational grants," and then that 
is elaborated in the same manner that it was in all of the drafts on 
pages 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Dodd's statement contains the same language 
that Mr. Hays read, "we analyzed thoroughly," that is a very rea- 
sonable thing to have happened, "the way in which the grants were 


originally made by some of the foundations to the larger institutions," 
and he explains why. 

All of that is in the final version which was distributed to the press 
and to the people who asked for it. It was only rearranged from the 
next-to-final version for which, as I explained, I had stencils cut 
with the idea that it would be available first thing Monday morning, 
sultations among themselves, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wormser, Mr. Koch, 

Mr. Hays. To put this back in the language of the chairman, he 
says that this represents a digestion of your findings over a period of 
8 months. "What I am trying to find out is who caused you to get 
indigestion over Sunday, here. I will read you some more changes 
that were made in this, if you would like me to, and in fact I want to 
question about them. 

The Chairman. I don't remember the chairman's exact words, but 
lie did not intend to say that this was a digest of the findings. I 
would not want to say that it was a digest of findings. 

Mr. Hats. I don't want to quibble about your words, but I made 
some notes about them, and if I am wrong, the record will show it. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Wormser whether he feels 
there is any objection to the part that is in the working draft being 
put in the record along with the presentation which Mr. Dodd made 
to the committee. 

Mr. Wormser. Before I answer that, may I respectfully request 
Mr. Hays to excise his word "doctored," and I think that there is no 
evidence at all that anything was doctored, Mr. Hays. That has 
rather unpleasant significance. 

The Chairman. That is the purpose of my-- — 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delete my language 
from my statement, and I used the word "doctored" and I am going 
to stand on it until someone shows me it wasn't doctored, and I am 
going to right now read you another sentence, and I will use the 
word "changed," if that makes you feel better, Mr. Wormser. 

The Chairman. Will you permit an interjection there again? As 
I stated earlier, the staff developed a presentation for the committee. 
During the course of that they consulted no one except the members 
of the staff, and the members of the committee, insofar as they did 
consult the members of the committee. No outside person was con- 
sulted. In the process of developing the statement, they had various 
working data and they had preliminary drafts, and, as is a natural 
consequence, they ultimately had a preliminary final draft, which 
might very well have become the final draft. After additional con- 
sultations among themselves, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wormser, and Mr. Koch, 
Mr. McNiece, and Miss Casey, made some consolidations, tighten- 
ing it up, and may have taken some things out. But whatever was 
done was their own work. The chairman can't see any possible 
grounds for any inferences except that the staff in good faith tried 
to develop the most perfect and complete presentation for the benefit 
of the committee. 

I, as one, want to commend the members of the staff in their indus- 
try and effort in developing and putting out their fullest efforts to 
develop the best statement possible for presentation to the committee; 

That, now, is the chairman's analysis of the way this was handled, 
and I don't see any possible grounds for any adverse inferences to be 
drawn from that method of procedure, which is a normal one. I have 


been on committees up here around the Hill now for some 30 years, 
and when I could get a staff to proceed in that way I always felt 
very grateful. 

Mr. Wormser. May I now answer your question, Mr. Chairman. 
You asked whether I had any objection to introducing the preliminary 
draft. I do have an objection, and I think it is unfair to Mr. Dodd, 
and I think it would be just as unfair as asking a man to publish a 
draft of a book when he has published the book itself. Mr. Dodd's 
opinions, as far as I know, have not altered one bit between the 
drafting of the first one and drafting the second one, but the actual 
wording of the instrument, or the document, which he wanted to pre- 
sent to the document and read at hearings was in some respects 
changed and rearranged and what not. I think that he has personal 
responsibility for issuing this report, and he is entitled to rest on the 
final report which he gave, and not be confused or made responsible 
for a draft of any kind. The draft has not been made public, and no 
effort was made to distribute what we call the preliminary report 
in any way, and it was not made public as far as the committee was 
concerned, as far as the staff was concerned. It was not distributed 
to anyone. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say, Mr. Wormser, that I am not trying to con- 
fuse Mr. Dodd. God forbid. According to some of the newspaper 
editorials, some of the responsible newspapers think he is. confused 
enough as it is, and I am just trying to straighten him out a little bit. 
I want to say, though, that whether you agreed to introduce it or not 
is immaterial to me. Apparently I have the only living copy of the 
so-called preliminary final draft, and I still say that I want to get 
to the bottom of why this was done after 10 months, Mr. Wormser, 
after 10 months of study, and so on. 

I am sure that you have known for a long time that these hearings 
were going to start last Monday, and as a matter of fact they have 
been postponed 2 or 3 times, and it seems to me a little bit queer, 
tb say the least, that after this draft was mimeographed on Saturday, 
that it was gone over and completely edited on Monday morning, and 
the committee itself didn't even have a copy of it, and only by acci- 
dent I got a hold of a copy when I phoned down to one of the staff 
the other day, and I can't even remember the gentleman's name. I was 
sent up a couple of copies, and only probably by accident I discovered 
the changes in them. But to me, after 10 months of study, the fact 
that these significant changes were made either Sunday night or at 
breakfast Monday morning or sometime, deserves a little bit of com- 
ment. If this 10 months of study hasn't firmed anything up at all yet, 
why, then, let us develop the testimony here in hearings and throw 
Mr. Dodd's statement clear out and start afresh. I think that that 
would be an invigorating way of doing it. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I always like to be on even terms 
with my associates on the committee, and might I inquire whether 
there would be any facilities for all members of the commission to 
have made available to them whatever there is by way of working 
sheets, and I don't know what it is that my distinguished friend from 
Ohio has before him. Whatever is available to me, should it not be 
made available to other members of the committee ? 

Mr. Hats. It seems that I have the say about that, and since I have 
the only copy, I will promise right now I am not going to yield it to 


anybody, but I will have my staff make some, exact duplicates of it, 
but I am not going to trust it out of my hands. 

The Chairman. For Mr. Goodwin's benefit, I think Miss Casey 
might state how this draft came into being. 

Mr. Goodwin. Perhaps she stated it once, and I don't want her to 
repeat anything. 

Miss Casey. I will be glad to, Mr. Goodwin. At the time Mr, 
Wormser left, after going over the statement with Mr. Dodd on 
Thursday — and at this point I would like to say that I hope we are 
not asked to give copies of all of the drafts, because that would entail 
a considerable amount of work 

Mr. (joodwin. I am sure Miss Casey will know I was somewhat 
facetious. I don't like to feel that I am at a disadvantage, and here 
is my associate here with a lot of material before him, which appar- 
ently he finds most interesting, and I haven't anything. 

Miss Casey. The chairman and the staff are at the same disadvan- 
tage, because we don't have copies of the document that Mr. Hays 
has now, except perhaps in a penciled draft that is crossed out and 
whatnot from which we would have to make another copy just like 
that, if we were asked to do it. I don't say it is impossible, but it 
might vary from comma to comma unless we had access to proofread 
it against his copy. 

Mr. Hays. I will be glad for you to do that. 

Miss Casey. If it is decided that we cut the stencils, Mr. Hays, I 
will take advantage of it. To answer Mr. Goodwin, after telephone 
conversations between Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wormser, and Mr. Koch, 
and myself, the last copy of Mr. Dodd's report seemed to me to be 
approaching a point where it was possible to mimeograph it. I had 
the stencils cut, and I had the stencils run with two things in mind. 

The hearings started at 10 o'clock on Monday, and Saturday was 
half a day, as far as the duplicating room at the Capitol was con- 
cerned. We had them run, I have forgotten the exact number of 
copies, but there were enough for copies to be available to the press, 
and available for each member of the committee. 

On Monday morning, it developed that — well, a rearrangement 
and not a deletion, Mr. Goodwin, was made in Mr. Dodd's report. 
The entire material that is in the unpublished draft version that 
Mr. Hays has, is in this one, but it is in a slightly different position. 
It may not be expressed at as great length, but everything is there*. 

Now, I am responsible for having the stencils cut, and having the 
stencils run and finally having those stencils destroyed, and I thought 
all of the copies were taken to the incinerator. 

Mr. Goodwin. Could I ask Miss Casey one question, whether or 
not when she started work on whatever was necessary to be done before 
it was actually distributed, whether or not the material placed in your 
hands then appeared to be a finished product, and ready to go ahead 

Miss Casey. Yes, I knew in a sense there might be — or rather, 
there is always a possibility that changes might be made afterward, 
but considering the length of this, Mr. Goodwin, and I think it runs 
some 36 pages, the sheer mechanics of it somewhat overwhelmed me 
between Saturday morning and Monday. It may have been an error 
in judgment on my part to have had the stencils cut and run. 


Mr. Hays. Were there two complete? Now, this thing comes to us 
in two sections, the Monday section and a Tuesday section. Did you 
rerun both of them ? 

Miss Casey. Yes, we reran it. You see, by rearranging it, some of 
the page numbers varied, and so in those cases, I think that I am right, 
we had to rerun it. We had to rerun most of it, let me put it that way. 

Mr. Hays. I only have the original of Monday's version, and it is 
hard to tell what has been lost to the world by the fact I didn't get 
Tuesday's, too. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is there something else you want, Mr. Hays ? 

Mr. Hays. Well, Mr. Goodwin, this is a little bit serious, I think, 
because some of the changes in language, in here, would indicate that 
the staff was prepared after 10 months of study to damn these founda- 
tions pretty severely, and then apparently somebody came along and 
said, ^'Look, I don't think we can get away with quite this, we had 
better tone this thing down a little Dit, because if we go out at it too 
badly we may just get run clear out of the Capitol. We had better 
move into this thing a little more gradually." 

So, instead of saying in some places, for instance, here it says, these 
penciled notes are mine, but in one place it said, "Our studies indi- 
cated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of 
the American people had been transferred completely to the executive 

Well, in the new version, they took out the word "completely" and 
said ^'heavily" and you see they didn't want to go whole hog on that 
particular one. . 

The Chairman. There is nothing unusual in changing phraseology 
and words. 

Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I finish ? There is something 
unusual in this whole procedure. It was unusual Monday, and I was 
amazed — and maybe this isn't true; Miss Casey is still here, and she 
can tell us to read in the papers that when the press came up to look 
at the final complete version, or we have used so many terms here, this 
is the preliminary final version, but then the final version — which 
was in looseleaf typewritten pages, that Miss Casey grabbed it and 
refused to let them look at it. 

Miss Casey. Let me clear that up. In the first place that was not 
the final draft. Those were Mr. Dodd's notes, and he had a great 
many penciled notations for his own guidance. I did not feel, and I 
don't feel now, nor I feel sure would you that the press could just 
take that and say, "Well, Mr. Dodd said this," because it happened 
to be a notation. That could be misconstrued, and I felt in justice to 
the committee it should not be done. 

Mr. Hays. That is an explanation, and I just wondered about it, 
but of course the whole crux of the matter goes back to the fact that 
you did have a version ready, and then that version was changed 
Monday morning rather significantly, and then you didn't have any 

Miss Casey. I would give you the same protection if you were 
going to make a speech on the floor of the House and had some pen- 
ciled notations on what you were going to read which might even be 
in a sort of , in hybrid shorthand, which could easily be misconstrued. 
I would feel you should be protected against someone misconstruing 


Mr. Hats. I will say this, Miss Casey, you needn't worry much 
about that, because if you will sit on the floor and hear what some of 
the Members say and then read the Congressional Eecord the next 
day, you will know that we have complete protection. 

Miss Casey. If you were speaking at a dinner perhaps it would be 
a better illustration. 

Mr. Hays. As a matter of fact, and I am sure the chairman won't 
take anything personal about this, I read with great interest just 
recently what he is alleged to have said when he was getting this 
resolution through and there was a lot of stuff that was introduced by 
unanimous consent that he didn't say, but it looks like he said it in the 
record. You see, we are protected, you don't need to worry about us. 

The Chairman. Anything I didn't say in the record was for want of 
time and not disposition. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Hays. I have some more questions. 

Mr. Wormser. May I correct the record in one respect? You have 
been talking about 10 months of preparation and it has been. 6 months 
and not 10, and may I recall also that this report was drawn in great 
haste. I am not trying to detract from its character, but at a com- 
mittee meeting, and I don't know whether you were there or not, 
Mr. Goodwin, it was agreed that Mr. Dodd would prepare such a 
report for the express purpose not only of informing the committee, 
but of giving the foundations notice of what our main lines of in- 
quiry would be. It was done in great haste, and we had only a week, 
or something slightly over a week, to produce the thing and get it out. 
I could not see it nor could Mr. Koch until it had been finally drafted. 

Mr. Hays. You don't need to apologize, Mr. Wormser. You told 
me a month ago that Mr. Dodd was going to be your first witness, at 
least a month ago. As a matter of fact these hearings were set down 
originally for sometime way back in April, and even then I knew 
he was going to be the first witness. Let us not quibble about a week 
or so. 

Mr. Wormser. It was not intended then, Mr. Hays, that he would 
file a report. Now, this report had to be finished in approximately 
a week. 

Mr. Hays. I have some more questions I want to ask Mr. Dodd. 

The Chairman. Mr. Dodd, did you want to make a statement ? 

Mr. Dodd. May I make a comment on something Mr. Hays said a 
few minutes ago ? Mr. Hays mentioned that the atmosphere behind 
this whole thing is as though the staff had set out to damn the 

Mr. Hays. Now, just a minute, don't put words in my mouth. I 
think what I said was that it would appear from this original, what 
do we call it, the final preliminary draft, I can't remember that 

Mr. Goodwin. How about the unexpurgated ? 

Mr. Hays. That is a good word. 

Mr. Dodd. May I ask that that be read. 

Mr. Hays. I would say that this report would seem to indicate that 
and then it was changed and they decided not to go quite so heavily. 
That is what I meant. 

Mr. Dodd, I don't think that that is exactly what you have said, sir. 

Mr. Hays. The record will show. 


Mr. Dodd. In any event, I would like to go on record as emphatically 
as possible that there has never entered into this work to my knowledge 
a desire to damn the foundations, and thereby get in a position such 
as Mr. Hays mentioned, namely, "Do we dare go this far at this time?" 
This investigation has been carried on in a manner which permitted 
the facts to tell their own story, and I am certain that as these hear- 
ings go forward that is the way in which it will be done. Nothing 
that I have had anything to do with has ever lost sight of that one 
purpose, to actually permit the" facts to tell their story. 

The Chairman. Certainly, so far as the chairman has had anything 
to say, with you or the other members of the staff, he has certainly 
indicated that he wanted that course to be followed. And, as chair- 
man, I want to say that I have not observed any other disposition on 
the part of Mr. Dodd, or Mr. Wormser, or Mr. Koch, or Miss Casey, 
Mr. McNiece, or any other member of the staff to do otherwise. 

Do you have some further questions? 

Mr. Hays. I sure do. 

Miss Casey. Could I make one statement further, and that is Mr. 
Hays asked this of Mr. Dodd and he might want to ask it of me. No 
one has ever attempted to influence my opinions, or the way in which 
I brought out the facts on any of the foundations that I worked on, 
and no one attempted to gear my thinking in any respect at all. 

The Chairman. However, it is not at all illogical to me to learn 
that members of the staff, especially as important members of the staff 
as we have here, might have different views, at least in a tentative way, 
that would ultimately need to be harmonized and brought together 
among themselves. There is nothing unusual about that that I can 
see at all, if such should happen to be the case. I cannot imagine that 
group of men and women starting out with exactly the same views 
expressed in the same language. 


Mr. Hays. Do you consider the New York Times to be a rather fair 
and impartial newspaper ? 

Mr. Dodd. May I answer that to give my opinion or judgment ? 

Mr. Hays, I want your opinion, and I have my opinion, and Mr. 
Reece has his. 

Do you consider that to be a fair and impartial newspaper? 

Mr. Dodd. My own opinion of it, Mr. Hays, is no. 

Mr. Hays. In the light of the editorial they wrote, I suppose that 
you wouldn't be consistent if you didn't say that. 

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Hays, may I remark that I have not read the edi- 
torial ? 

Mr. Hays. Let me read a sentence of it to you, and see if you think 
so, and may I say that I have gotten several dozen letters which drew 
the same conclusions from your statement: The New York Times 
on May 13 says : 

What is alarming about Mr. Dodd's opening statement is that it indicates 
a belief that intellectual advancement, if any, must conform to a rigid pattern of 
those set in the 18th century. 


And you know something, independently I arrived at just the same 
conclusion from reading your statement, because I didn't see this 
editorial until this morning. I have been questioning you trying to 
bring that out. 

The Chairman. You don't reach the same conclusion yourself, did 
you, Mr. Dodd? 

Mr. Dodd. No, sir, I did not, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know where 
it says that in the statement. 

Mr. Hays. Well, do you recall having a conversation with me back 
in November, at Bethesda Naval Hospital ? 

Mr. Dodd. Very definitely, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. Now, perhaps fortunately for both of us, I will tell you 
right now, there is no transcript of that conversation available, and 
we will have to rely upon our memories. But do you recall telling 
me generally that you believed there had been some sort of — and I may 
be using the wrong word when I say plot or arrangement — among all 
of these foundations to change the whole concept of the social sciences? 

Mr. Dodd. I remember talking to you about' that, that that is what 
the facts would ultimately disclose, but it is not between the founda- 

Mr. Hays. But you told me back in November that that is what the 

Mr. Dodd. That is what the story would unfold, probably. 

Mr. Hays. That there is some kind of a big plot ? 

Mr. Dodd. Not a plot. 

Mr. Hays. What do you want to call it? Let us get a terminology 

Mr. Dodd. It is a happening. 

Mr Hays. Well, now, there is a good deal of difference, Mr. Dodd, 
isn't there between a happening, and something that is brought about 
deliberately ? 

Mr. Dodd. Very definitely, sir and I am one of those who strongly 
advocates and takes the stand that this has not been brought about 
deliberately by the foundations. 

Mr. Hays. It is just sort of an accidental thing? 

Mr. Dodd. I don't know as you could call it accidental ; it is a de- 
velopment. But I do not feel that it has been brought about deliber- 
ately by foundations. 

Mr. Hays. Do you think it is bad ? 

Mr. Dodd. I have attempted to be objective, and I don't think of it 
in terms of bad or good, and I think it is something we should know 

Mr. Hays. Well, I don't think that there are any of us here who 
wouldn't know that the concept of the social sciences has changed even 
in my generation. 

Mr. Dodd. Yes; but I don't think it is a question of whether it is 
good or bad ; I think we should know that it changed. 

Mr. Hays. Well, we don't need a $115,000 investigation to know 
that, and you can find that out. Most anybody on the street could tell 
you that ; is that right ? 

Mr. Dodd. But this is in relation, as I understand it, to a resolution 
which asks 5 Members of Congress to make 5 determinations. 

Mr. Hays. The way we are going, we may wind up with five de- 
terminations; I don't know. 


The Chairman. Will you permit an interjection? I was going to 
say, Mr, Dodd, after he had his conferences with you at the naval 
hospital, expressed to me great satisfaction with the conference, and 
reported to me something to the effect that if he followed the factual 
line of presentation which he discussed with you, that you hoped he 
wouldn't be blocked by the majority members of the committee, or 
impeded by the majority members of the committee in the proceeding. 
He was very much pleased. 

Mr. Hays. I was too weak to argue with him much then. But I 
want to say this, for the benefit of counsel, and Mr. Dodd : I like Mr. 
Dodd as an individual. He and I don't see eye to eye on a great many, 
shall we say, concepts about social sciences, but I believe Mr. Dodd is 
sincere in what he thinks he believes, as I am, and perhaps in the 
process that he will educate me or I will educate himj I don't know. 
But I want to make that perfectly clear. In any questions that I may 
ask you, Mr. Dodd, they are not asked in a, spirit of animosity at all, 
and I am trying to get some answers that .we can hang something onto 
here before we go any further. 

Mr. Dodd. I feel that that is the spirit in which they are being asked, 
Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. But the only reason I ask you about that conversation — 
and, of course, you recall, it lasted for some little time, and we talked 
about many things, but I was disturbed then as I am still disturbed in 
the light of what has transpired so far— that the impression at least is 
getting abroad that we think that this committee may come to the 
conclusion that change is bad, per se. Now, if we are going to accept 
the premise here that there has been a lot of change, and we will bring 
the facts out as they are, and then let the public decide whether it is 
good or bad, that is one thing, but if this committee is going to come 
to the conclusion or try to arrive at a conclusion about what is good or 
bad in education, I think that perhaps we are a little bit out of our 
field, and we have strayed pretty far. 

Mr. Goodwin. "Will you yield there? 

Mr. Dodd, with reference to something in between Mr. Hays' plot 
and your 

Mr. Hays. Don't call it my plot. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Hays' reference to a plot, and your designation of 
a happening, would it help any if the suggestion were made that what 
you had in mind was a trend or a tendency ? 

Mr. Dodd. It is a very noticeable trend, Mr. Goodwin, and it involves 
the coordinated activity of a variety of seemingly separate institutions. 
What to call it, and what name to give it, I don't know. I think we 
will just have to wait until the facts appear, and allow the committee 
to characterize it for itself. 

But I have been guided all along here by the fact that nothing 
that this staff did, or nothing that the staff plus counsel attempted to 
do should be other than that which would make it helpful or help the 
committee to discharge its obligations under that resolution. The 
guiding factor behind that was an assembly of the facts as they fell. 

Now, Mr. Hays is making reference to the fact that I had ideas on 
this subject, seemingly, prior to my assumption of my duties. It is 
very hard to have been a student of these changes and these trends 
for 25 years and not to haVe some knowledge of it. It was out of that 
knowledge that I was able to give Mr. Hays assurance the day we first 


met, that this investigation could be carried out in terms of trends, 
in terms of practices, in terms of events, and in terms of political 
action, and in terms of historic changes, and not have to be carried 
out in terms of personalities or general opinions. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Dodd, in the final draft which you made available 
to the press and the committee of your first day's statement, among the 
criticisms that you directed at the Cox committee was this, and we 
have been over it before : 

Foundations were not asked why they did not support projects of a pro- 
American type. 

Now, I am going to read you a short sentence, and ask you if you 
ever heard this before : 

The significance of this was bound to be missed unless the determination of 
foundations to break with tradition had been previously identified. 

Mr. Dodd. Yes, sir, that is in the first draft. 

Mr. Hays. But not in the second draft? 

Mr. Dodd. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Why was that taken out? 

Mr. Dodd. Well, it was deemed by counsel to be too conclusive. 

Mr. Hays. That is a good anwser. 

Mr. Goodwin. It seems also to have been a very good determination. 

Mr. Hays. What do you mean, "It is a good determination"? Is 
that the determination of foundations to break with tradition or the 
determination to take this out? 

Mr. Goodwin. I think the substance as appeared in the final draft 
is certainly nearer to what I think ought to be a statement to come 
from this staff than what appeared or what you say appeared in the 
other draft that you have there. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say this 

Mr. Goodwin. It was the result of some careful thinking on some- 
body's part. 

Mr. Hays. If that is true, then I am very happy, but I am wonder- 
ing if it was a result of the fact that they have arrived at this con- 
clusion, but didn't want the public to know it just yet. 

The Chairman. The discussion, as I recall, which the members of 
the staff had with the members of the committee as a whole, as well 
as the chairman individually, indicated very clearly that they were not 
stating conclusions, and I am sure and I can very well understand, in 
a preliminary draft some might use a word that after reflection or 
after another member of the staff who had not been quite so closely 
associated with the writing itself, would readily recognize it as being 
too conclusive or too strong a language, which would result after a 
conference in a modification of language. 

That is the way good results are arrived at. And again I just feel 
that I want to say that I feel the staff went about this m a very satis- 
factory way to get the kind of presentation which the committee was 
interested in having. 

Mr. Goodwin. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
will expect me to be a little jealous of the Cox committee because I 
happened to be a member of that committee. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say to you, Mr. Goodwin, right here, to 
get the record straight, that I think the Cox committee did a good 
and adequate job, and I think that the Congressional Record will show 


that I said on the day this resolution was being debated ,thatX felt ^he 
Cox committee had done the job and it was unnecessary to r^§rkv|he 
ground. So, let me compliment you, and I hope this £omi30^tee i . will 
come up with §s good a one. ; . , 

The Chairman. As a member of the Cox committee, I am veryi&ujGh. 
gratified. . , -^ 

Mr. Hats. As I recall it, you were a little critical of the Cox com- 

Mr, Goodwin. I compliment Mr. Hays for coming along with me. 

Mr. Hats. I hope the investigation that we are conducting will have 
as salutory and final effects as the Cox committee did. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Dodd, in the original speech on the floor last year, 
which is now part of the record of this committee, there were quite a 
number of pages devoted to the Ford Foundation. There is one 
whole series of statements under a subtitle called, "Subversive and 
Pro-Communist, and Pro- Socialist Propagaiida Activities of the Ford 
Foundation." Have you found any evidence of such activity ? 

Mr. Dodd. That will come forward, Mr. Hays, if I may say so, and 
that will be brought out in the formal testimony here in the hearings 
which is about to consume one or more hearings in its. own right. I 
would not like to anticipate that at this time. 

The Chairman. I hope, Mr. Hays, that you won't hold Mr* Dodd 
responsible for my speech. . 

Mr. Hats. Oh, no, as a matter of fact, after discussing it, I won't 
even hold you responsible. 

Mr. Dodd. May I mention, Mr. Hays, that the strict definition that 
we have been guided by as far as the word "subversive" is concerned is 
quite different than that used in the excerpt that you have mentioned. 1 

The Chairman. What is your definition, or would you mind re- 
stating your definition ? 

Mr. Dodd. We used the one, Mr. Chairman, that Brookings arrived* 
at after having been requested to study this subject. I believe it was. 
for the House Un-American Activities Committee. That was : That 
which was action designed to alter either the principles or the form of 
the United States Government by other than constitutional means, 
was subversive. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, then, we wouldn't call social security 
and bank insurance subversive under that definition would we ? 

Mr. Dodd. I wouldn't think so. 

Mr. Hats. I wouldn't think so either; 

Mr. Dodd, do you know anybody, and I am sorry, I don't at the 
moment have the notes I made on it, and have the man's first name, 
but I think you will recognize a man by the name of Conrad from 

Mr, Dodd. Yes, I do, sir. 

Mr. Hats. What is his first name? 

Mr. Dodd. Arthur. 

Mr. Hats. That is right; I thought it was Arthur. Has he been 
in touch with the staff at all during your preliminary work ? 

Mr. Dodd. He was at the first day's hearings, and I met him, I only 
met him once during the time that I have been here. 

Mr. Hats. He hasn't offered any advice or information to the staff, 
has he? 

49720 — 54— pt. 1 1 


Mr. Dodd. No, sir. ^ r 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Dodd, I have some more questions, but the Chairman 
has suggested that you have a* witness here who wants to be heard 
today, or tomorrow, and since it will give me more time^to get some of 
these notes I have in form, if it is satisfactory then we will excuse you, 
and call you back sometime subsequently in the hearings. 

Mr. Dodd. All right, Mr. Hays. 

The Chairman. Is that satisfactory ? 

Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is the other witness ? 

Mr. Wormser. Professor Briggs, will you take the stand, please ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Briggs, will you be sworn. Do you solemnly 
swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Briggs. I do. 


Mr. Wormser. Will you state your name and address for the record ? 

Dr. Briggs. My name is Thomas H. Briggs, and my legal residence 
is Meredith, N. H. 

Mr. Wormser. Professor Briggs, to save you the effort ? may I iden- 
tify you by reading part of your record, and if I make a mistake, please 
correct me. You have the degrees of doctor of literature, and doctor 
of philosophy, and on January of this year, received the honorary 
degree of doctor of human letters from Columbia University. You 
have been a teacher in various secondary schools, and later in Eastern 
Illinois State Normal School where you were professor of English. 
Before that you were professor at Stetson University. You were a 
professor at Teachers College at Columbia from 1912 or at least you 
were on the faculty from 1912 and you became a professor there in 
education in 1920, and held that position until 1942. You have been 
emeritus since 1942, is that correct ? 

Dr. Briggs. That is correct. 

Mr. Wormser. You have been on quite a multitude of commissions, 
I notice, consumer education study, of the National Association of 
Secondary School Principals, and you were a director, I believe, of 
that organization for many years. You were on the commission on 
the reorganization of secondary education, the commission on teach- 
ing science and industrial subjects in war emergency, the syllabus com- 
mittee on junior high schools in the State of New York, on the review- 
ing committee of the National Education Association, on the National 
Committee on Research in Secondary Education, on the Teachers Col- 
lege Faculty Committee, and on the committee on orientation in sec- 
ondary education of the NEA, and on the World Congress on Educa- 
tion for Democracy at Teachers College, and you were chairman of 
that group, and on faculty advisory committee to the dean at Teachers 
College, and you were chairman of that group. 

You are the author of numerous books, Formal Grammar as a Dis- 
cipline, and the Junior High School, Curriculum Problems, The Great 
Investment, Secondary Education, Improving Instruction, Pragma- 
tism and Pedagogy, The Meaning of Democracy, and you have con- 
tributed to numerous publications. 

Dr. Briggs. Yes. 


The Chairman. Do you liave a formal statement that you. wishf to 
first present, Professor Briggs? 

Dr. Briggs. I do, Mr. Chairman. ; i 

The Chairman. You may proceed. ';'■'■ j 

Mr. Hats. Do we have copies of this statement, sir, so that we ean 

annotate it and make notes of it as we go along, or do we have to 

pick it out of the air. 

Mr. Wormser. I have only one copy which I am- perfectly willing 
to let you have before you if you wish it. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Wormser, 7C want to be very patient about 'this, but 
in case I haven't I, would like to feake it very clear that when you are- 
bringing in witnesses to set up your case— and I assume they would" 
be called committee witnesses, since they have been secured by the staff, 
and you have invited them here—it seems only fair that you should 

fet the statements ready so that the committee can have a copy to 
ollow along, as the witness reads it in case we would like to make a 
note. Now, it is going to be pretty difficult to try to write down what 
he says and then write down your question, if you have one, after- 
ward, it is just not in line with committee procedure around here. 

Mr, Wormser. Well, of course, the statement would be-r— 

Mr. Hays. You have a copy but we, don't, I don't want to take 
unfair advantage of Mr. Goodwin here, and I have already done it 
once today. 

The Ch4irman. It will be here for reference. 

Mr. Goodwin. We can take care of that. 

•Mr. Wobmsbr. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that Professor 
Briggs' testimony is somewhat out of order in this sense, that I Would 
have .preferred to call him later, bu^ he is retired and he is leaving 
for New Hampshire in a few days, and I took the liberty therefore 
of calling him today. 

The Chairman. We will receive his testimony. 

Mr. Hays. Suppose we let him read it in, and then defer ques- 
tioning until we get a copy of the hearings tomorrow so we can have 
a chance to look it over and see what he said. • 

Dr. Brig#s. It is my fault. I didn't finish this until Sunday. • 

Mr. Hays. I don't think it is your fault, sir, and I think the com- 
mittee should have forewarned you and helped you have the copies 
ready. ,'. - • 7 - - . - ••" 

Mr: Wormser. We couldn't, Mr. Hays, if you will pardon me, ber 
ca,use I didn't want to bring- Professor TBriggs down from New Hamp- 
shire and he is leaving on the 23d. 

The Chairman. The chairman might state, when it is feasible and 
convenient, we will ask, Mr. Wormser to have the statements avail- 
able in advance to the members of the committee, or at least during 
the hearings, but in some cases it is not and I am sure when it is 
feasible and convenient that he will do so. It has been my ex- 
perience in the past on committees that it was not unusual for a 
witness not to have statements available, for members of the commit-; 
tee, although I will agree with you, it is a convenience to have the- 
statements. ■ - • ■ • ..- ■ ... M 

Mr. Hays. It has been customary in the committees I. have been 
on. -. . >.'•-. 7 ■-.. .' ...■'- , ■ ■ .". .... 

The Chairman. You may proceed. - 7 


Dr. Briggs. There are now in the United States several thousand 
foundations, most, if not all of them, chartered by the Federal Govern- 
ment or by individual States and freed from obligation to pay taxes on 
their income. The purposes for which they were established are 
variously stated, but in general the establishment is said to be a — 

recognition of the obligation involved in stewardship of surplus wealth, abetted 
by a reverent faith in man and his possibilities for progress. 

But whatever the stated purpose or purposes, the public has a deep 
concern and an actual responsibility to see that the activities of each 
and every foundation, whether its resources are large or small, not 
only does not harm but also contributes to a maximum degree possible 
to the welfare of the Nation. This right and this responsibility are 
derived from the fact that the public has chartered the foundations 
and also that by remission of taxes it is furnishing a large part of the 
available revenue. In the case of the Ford Foundation, which has 
an annual income in excess of $30 million, the public contributes more 
than $27 million, or $9 to every $1 that comes from the original donor. 

In addition to the right and the responsibility of the public to insure 
that foundation moneys are spent for the maximum good of society in 
general, the public is concerned that no chartered foundation promote 
a program which in any way and to any extent militates against what 
society has decided is for its own good. To ascertain if foundations 
have either intentionally or because of poor judgment contributed 
to the weakening of the public welfare this committee, as I understand 
it, was authorized by the Congress. 

I should like to insist at this point that the committee should be 
equally concerned to consider whether or not any foundation is 
spending its income wastefully or on projects that promise benefit to 
only a favored section of the country or to arbitrarily favored 

Two principles that should govern all foundation appropriations 
are, first, that each supported project should promise to result not 
only in good but also in the maximum possible good; and, second, 
that each supported project should promise to benefit, either directly or 
indirectly, the Nation as a whole. Since, as already noted, a large part 
of the income of every foundation is contributed by the general public 
through the remission of taxes, these principles are incontrovertible. 

My competence to testify before this committee is based largely on 
my knowledge of the Fund for the Advancement of Education, a 
subsidary of the Ford Foundation. This fund was established on 
recommendation of a committee of which the late Commissioner of 
Education of the State of New York, Francis T. Spaulding, was chair- 
man. Announcement of the establishment of the fund was greeted 
with enthusiastic approbation by the entire educational profession, 
the members of which saw in it great potentialities for the betterment 
of public schools. The expectations of the profession were raised by 
the announcement of the membership of the board of directors, each 
one a citizen of the highest reputation for integrity and sound 

But unfortunately these hopes have been in large measure disap- 
pointed by the selection of the administrators and the staff of the 
fund and by much of the program that they have developed. Not a 
single member of the staff, from the president down to the lowliest 


employee, has had any experience, certainly none in recent years, that 
would give understanding of the problems that are met daily by the 
teachers and administrators of our schools. It is true that they have 
from time to time called in for counsel experienced educators of their 
own choosing, but there is little evidence that they have been mate- 
rially influenced by the advice that was proffered. As one prominent 
educator who was invited to give advice reported, "any suggestions 
for changes in the project (proposed by the fund) were glossed _over 
without discussion." As a former member of a so-called advisory 
committee I testify that at no time did the administration of the fund 
seek from it any advice on principles of operation nor did it hospitably 
receive or act in accordance with such advice as was volunteered. 

Of course, one can always secure acceptable advice by the selection 
of advisers, and equally, of course, advice, however wise, can be ignored 
or interpreted as favoring a policy already determined upon. 

There are educators who holding to a philosophy to that generally 
accepted will give advice that is wanted, and unfortunately there are 
individuals who can be prevailed on by expectation of grants of money 
to cooperate in promoting projects that have no general professional 

Because of the failure of the fund to clarify the functions of the 
so-called advisory committee, an able body that was given far more 
credit by the administration than it was allowed to earn, or to use 
it in any effective way, in March of this year I submitted my resigna- 
tion in a letter that was later published in School and Society. 

Although this journal has only a modest circulation, the number of 
commendations that I have received, both orally and in letters from 
all parts of the country, have been surprising and gratifying. It may 
be asserted that I am disgruntled because policies and projects which 
I favored were not approved by the fund. Whether or not I am dis- 
gruntled is not important. What is important for the committee— 
and, for that matter, for the public at large— to consider is the validity 
of the criticism that is leveled against the fund as administered. 

Especially disturbing in a large number of the responses to my letter 
of resignation was the fear, often expressed and always implied, of 
making criticisms of the fund lest they prejudice the chances of the 
institution represented by the critic or of some project favored by him 
of getting financial aid from the fund at some future time. 

It is tragic in a high degree that men who have won confidence and 
position in the educational world should be intimidated from express- 
ing criticism of a foundation whose administrators and policies they 
do not respect. 

I am not inclined to criticize severely the board of directors of the 
fund, for they are busy with their own affairs and naturally are in- 
clined to put trust in their elected administrative officers, all of whom 
were directly or indirectly nominated by a formerly influential officer 
of the Ford Foundation who is notoriously critical — I may even say 
contemptuous- — of the prof essional education of teachers. 

These administrative officers doubtless present to the board, as they 
do to the public, a program so general as to get approval and yet so 
indefinite as to permit activities which in the judgment of most compe- 
tent critics are either wasteful or harmful to the education program 
that has been approved by the public. 


Uninformed laymen are likely to accept with proud endorsement, 
for instance, a proposal to raise the standard of teachers, without being 
concerned to consider critically the projects proposed to achieve that 
desirable goal as related to a philosophy of education or as contrasted 
with other possible and perhaps more practicable means. 

I charge that the present officers of the Fund for the Advancement 
of Education have arrogated to themselves an assumption of omnis- 
cience, which responsibility for distributing- millions of donated dol- 
lars does not automatically bestow, nor does it bestow a becoming 
humility and respect for the judgment of others. 

Presidents Jessup and Keppel and Dr. Abraham Flexner have been 
honest enough to say that the great foundations which they repre- 
sented made mistakes. But the officers of the fund under discussion 
have as yet admitted no such frailty. Whenever foundation officers, 
subordinate as well as chief, confuse position with ability and power 
with wisdom, losing the humility that would keep ears and mind 
hospitably open to what others think, the welfare of the general public 
is endangered. 

It can hardly be wondered at that the officers of a foundation stead- 
ily tend, as Dr. Keppel once said, toward "an illusion of omniscience or 
omnipotence." Even a chauffeur feels that the powerful engine in 
the car that he is hired to drive increases his importance, is in a sense 
his own personal power. 

The fund officers have either made grants to any of the professional 
organizations of teachers or of school administrators, nor has it even 
sought their counsel. But it is obvious, or it should be obvious, that 
no proposed program that affects education, however heavily financed 
by a foundation, can be successful unless it is understood and approved 
by those who will be called on to interpret and to administer it. The 
officers of the fund may feel themselves superior in wisdom and fore- 
sight to teachers and administrators, but the fact remains that these 
people are employed by the public and have been entrusted with the 
responsibility for carrying on an approved program of educating the 
young people of the Nation. 

All thinking about education should start with an understanding 
that it is not primarily a benevolence but, rather, a long-term invest- 
ment by the public to make each community a better place in which 
to live and a better place in which to make a living. Like stockholders 
in any other enterprise, the public has a right to determine what it 
wishes the product to be. The principle that the public should decide 
what it wants in order to promote its own welfare and happiness is 
unquestionably sound. An assumption that the public does not know 
what is for its own good is simply contrary to the fundamental prin- 
ciples of democracy. 

Having decided what it wants its schools to produce, the public 
leaves, or should leave, to management the selection of employees and 
decisions about materials and methods to be used. No-more than a 
stockholder of General Motors, General Electric, or General Mills 
does it have a right to go to employees and tell them how to do their 

This the officers of the Fund for the Advancement of Education 
are assuming to do. But the public does have a rjght and an obliga- 
tion, which it seldom fully satisfies, to require an audited report of the 
success of the management that it employs. If the product is not 


satisfactory, the public must decide whether to modify its demands as 
to objectives, to employ new management, or to make possible the pro/- 
curement of better operatives or the purchase of better materials with 
wh^ch they can work. , 

All this being understood, we can assert without fear of successful 
contradiction that any attempt by outside agencies, however heavily 
they may be financed and however supported by eminent individuals, 
to influence school administrators and teachers to seek other objectives 
than those which have public approval or to use methods arid mate- 
rials not directed by responsible management is an impudence riot to 
be tolerated. Though cloaked with declared benevolence, it cannot 
hide the arrogance underneath. 

This argument with its conclusions is easily seen to be sound when 
applied to military or industrial organization and administration. It 
ought to be easily apparent as well when applied to public education. 

It would be manifestly absurd to assert that all of the activities of 
any foundation have been bad in intent or jn effect. As a matter of 
fact, the activities of all but a minority of the foundations of which I 
know anything have been both benevolent and beneficial to the public 
at large. It is only when a foundation uses its resources, which in 
large part you and I made available through waiving their payment 
of income taxes, to propagandize for something that the public does 
not recognize as for its best interest, that there is reason for concern, 
alarm, and perhaps control. 

It is admitted that in this country an individual is free to argue for 
or to spend his own money to popularize any theory or any proposed 
change that he approves, so lpng as it does not violate the laws of the 
land. But that is very different from authorizing or condoning the 
use of our money to promote what we do not approve. 
. I should like to say at this point that if a fraction of the money and 
effort that has been spent recently to detect and to eradicate the ad- 
vocacy of communism had been spent to inculcate in youth an under- 
standing of the American way of life there would now be no danger 
from communism or from any other alien philosophy. 

It would be a great contribution to the promotion of the welfare of 
our Nation if agencies of the public were to devote themselves to a 
constructive campaign to educate our young people to enthusiastic 
devotion to what we know is the best way of life possible in this 
modern world. Cultivation of a good crop is far more sensible and 
economical in terms of ultimate results than neglect of cultivatiori f or 
the puropse of eradicating a few weeds. 

Representing, as I think I do, the sentiment of the vast majority of 
educators of the country, I am deeply concerned that a major part of 
the program of the Fund for the Advancement of Education depre- 
cates the professional education of teachers and of school administra- 
tors. . '.''■'■'" 

It apparently is assuming that a good general education is sufficient 
to insure effective professional work. Such a belief underlay a pro- 
gram which proved unsatisfactory not only in England, Germany, 
France, and other civilized countries, but also during earlier days in 
the United States. 

Consequently, realizing the necessity of professional education; we 
have developed during the past two generations a program which, 
approved by legislation and by financial support, has resulted in a 


system of schools unparalleled elsewhere in the history of the world. 
Whatever their shortcomings, our schools enroll a larger percentage 
of children and youth, retain them longer, present courses of study 
more continuously adapted to the life of today, and use better methods 
developed by science as well as by common sense than any other schools 
have ever done before. 

There can be no sound argument against an assertion that teachers 
need more liberal education than they now in general have. But we 
are getting what we are willing to pay for. If we demand teachers 
who have a broader background and more cultural education, we must 
pay enough to justify young people in spending the necessary time and 
money to get it. 

This, as is well known, we are not now doing. The salaries of teach- 
ers do not compare favorably with the wages of workers in fields 
that require little education and even less special training. During 
the renaissance one Italian city devoted half of its income to education. 
In the United States today we devote only a little more than 2 percent, 
with 1 State spending as little as 1.75 percent. If we want teachers 
with a larger amount of general education, we simply shall have to 
pay salaries that will justify young people in making the necessary 
investment in themselves to qualify to satisfy our demands. 

The desired increase in general education of teachers will not result 
from the projects, costly as they are, of the Fund for the Advancement 
of Education. They may improve a small fraction of teachers, but 
they are unlikely to have any widespread national effect. 

One of its projects finances for 200 or 300 high-school teachers 
annual fellowships that permit advanced cultural studies. At the 
present rate the fund would require 750 years and an expenditure of 
$1,200 million to give such advantages to all secondary-school teachers 
at present in service, and even at that, because of the turnover of staffs, 
it would never catch up. The officers of the fund have stated that they 
hope their project would stimulate local school boards to finance simi- 
lar leaves for study by other teachers. 

But after 3 years of what the fund erroneously calls "a great experi- 
ment" there is no evidence that the hoped-for result is in sight. Nor, 
according to reports from a number of schools from which the favored 
teachers were selected, has the expenditure of several million dollars 
on the project produced any material improvement in education or 
in the increased ambition of other teachers. 

This is but one of several expensive projects that the fund has 
financed for a purpose praiseworthy in itself but wastefully unlikely 
to have any significant results on education throughout the country. 
The relatively few fortunate teachers probably profited from their 
year of study, but it was unrealistic to expect that their experience 
would materially affect all, or any considerable part, of the schools 
of the Nation. 

There is no time to comment here on several other projects financed 
by the fund. It is sufficient to assert that though some good may come 
out of them they are for the most part propagandistic of the idea that 
professional education is of far less importance than the public is con- 
vinced that it is and also of the idea that secondary education is im- 
portant only for naturally gifted youth. 

TAX-EXEMPT ftdt&feTlONS 101 

Moreover, these projects violate t&$$r$$ipe that foundation ftth$3 
should be expended economically with a reasonable expectation Of 
beneficent results for the whole Nation. 

It cannot be successfully denied' f ttia& schoolteachers and admin- 
istrators need professions;! . tf ainMgV |ust as doctors, dentists, and 
ministers of the Gospel doi The MuMfciOn of otjr children cannot 
safely be entrusted to untrained teacher's 'any more than their health 
and moral development can safely be entrusted to untrained physicians 
and ministers. 

How much professional education and of what kinds is needed we 
are trying by experiment and by experience to ascertain. It may 
be that in the rapid development of professional-education programs 
there are now some wasteful courses aM some poor instruction, 
which may also be found in liberal-arts colleges, and that there is an 
overemphasis on theory and on techniques. But the improvement 
that is needed and the desired balancing of general and professional 
education will not come about hy a condemnation of the whole pro- 
gram and an attempt so to discredit and subordinate it that it becomes 
insufficient and ineffective. 

What is needed, and what as a member of the Advisory Com- 
mittee I recommended with what seemed to be the approval of my 
fellow members, is an objective study Of the whole program of pro- 
fessional education of schoolteachers and administrators, a study 
conducted by an impartial and able investigator that will show up 
any existing faults, including an overemphasis on pedagogy, and at 
the same time recognize and record practices that are sound in theory 
and of proved effectiveness. 

Such an objective study was made of medical education some years 
ago by Dr. Abraham Flexner with an appropriation from the Carnegie 
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

Flexner's objective and sensible report caused a revolutionary 
improvement in medical education, a revolution so sound that it 
has been universally approved by physicians and by the public alike. 
But concerning the professional education of school people the officers 
of the fund begin their propaganda against current practices by an 
assumption that they know what the preparation should be with 
such an assumption,' however unsound, would not be disturbing if 
these, officers did not have at their disposal millions of money, yours 
and mine, as well as Mr. Ford's to promote their theories. To what- 
ever extent successful their propaganda, disguised under declared 
benevolence, the effect is likely to be decreasing, public confidence 
and perhaps decreased public support for what is desirable and 

In this extended statement I am not attacking the phenomenon 
of foundations that are established with benevolent intent. They 
have great potentialities for benefiting mankind, and I say without 
reserve that on the whole the major foundations deserve and have 
won by their activities the respect, the confidence, and the gratitude 
of informed people. 

It has been stated that, unlike colleges and universities, founda- 
tions have no alumni to defend them. But they do have influential 
people as members of their boards, and these members have powerful 
friends, some of whom are more inclined to be partisanly defensive 
than objectively critical. Moreover, there laiie also thousands who, 


hopeful of becoming beneficiaries of future grants, either conceal 
their criticisms or else give expression to a defense that may not 
be wholly sincere. 

Asking nothing for myself and at my age having nothing to fear 
by way of reprisal, such professional reputation as I have being firmly 
established, I make my criticisms of the foundation that I know 
best as a matter of duty. To be constructive, I propose the following 
statement of functions which seem proper for any loundation : 

1. To seek the advice of official or generally recognized representa- 
tives of the public in formulating policies or on the soundness, feasi- 
bility, relative importance, and timeliness of important proposed 
projects. The advice received, along with the recommendations and 
supporting reasons of the administrative officers, should be considered 
by the board of trustees iri making final decision as to appropriations. 

This stated function does not suggest that the administrative officers 
should refrain from seeking counsel from other individuals of their 
own choosing. But it emphasizes the wisdom and the responsibility 
not only of getting counsel from representatives of the public but also 
of transmitting their advice to the ultimate authority of the founda- 

The responsibility of spending the resources of a foundation — 
which to repeat, are contributed largely by the public — are too great 
to be assumed by any individuals without the advice and cooperative 
planning of the professional organizations that will be responsible 
for the success of any project that is undertaken. 

2. To conduct — or, better still, to finance — scientific research that 
will reveal facts needed by the public or its representatives in special- 
ized fields in order that it can proceed wisely in planning action. 

It should go without saying that a foundation should never- — 

attempt to influence findings and conclusions of research and investigations 
either through designation of personnel or in any other way. 

This principle was stated some years ago by the Laura Spellman 
Rockefeller Foundation as follows : 

To support scientific research on social, economic, and governmental questions 
When responsible educational or scientific institutions initiate the request, spon- 
sor the research, or assume responsibility for the selection and competency of 
the staff and the scientific spirit of the investigations. 

3. To support projects having promise of making the widest possi- 
ble contribution to the whole population. 

This rules out appropriations for projects that are local in character 
or promotive of the interests of favored individuals. 

4. To popularize objectively ascertained facts in order that being 
widely known they will influence thinking and action. 

This stated function implies that all pertinent and important facts, 
not merely those that are favorable to a favored side of disputed issues, 
should be popularized. 

5. "To make possible under the auspices of scientific" or professional 
organizations truly representative of the public "demonstrations 
which may serve to test, to illustrate, or to lead to more general adop- 
tion of measures * * * which have been devised * * * and recom- 
mended by responsible agencies." 

6. To support the beginnings of activities which leaders of the 
public especially concerned approve but for which financial support 
has not been made available. 


This implies that foundation support should be gradually with- 
drawn as the public is convinced of the wisdom of assuming 
responsibility. . : 

1. To aid institutions and other reputable organizations that seel? 
to carry out the same or other similar functions. 

In summary, I charge :-.'-. 

1. That the fund for the advancement of education is improperly; 
manned with a staff inexperienced in public elementary and secondary 
schools, ignorant at firsthand of the problems that daily .con-front 
teachers and school administrators, and out of sympathy with the 
democratic ideal of giving an appropriate education to, all the chil- 
dren of all of the people ; 

2. That the fund is using its great resources, mostly contributed by 
the public by the remission of taxes, to deprecate a program of pro- 
fessional education of teachers and school administrators that has been 
approved by the public with legislation an4, appropriations; \ ...... ; „ . , : 

3. That the fund has ignored, the professional organizations of 
teachers and school administrators, neither seeking their advice and 
cooperation nor making appropriation to support projects proposed 
by them; 

4. That the fund has made grants to favored localities and indi- 
viduals for projects that are not likely to have any wide or important 

5. That the fund has given no evidence of its realization of its obli- 
gation as a public trust to promote the general good of the entire 
Nation; - . 

6. That the fund has. in some cases been wastefully prodigal in 
making grants beyond the importance of the projects ; and 

7. That the fund either has no balanced program of correlated con- 
structive policies, or else it has failed to make them public. 

The Chairman. Dr. Briggs, we appreciate a man with your backT 
gound of experience taking time to make this statement to the com- 

There may be some questions. We have a few minutes remaining, if 
it is agreeable to the committee to run for a few minutes after 12, 
we might dispose of the questions today. If not, we will have to con- 
sult Dr. Briggs convenience as to when we might do so. ^ 

I have only one question that I had in mind asking; If you will 
permit, I will get that out of the way, because it is. a general one* ? 

In his report to the committee, Mr, Dodd referred to the tendency 
of foundation trustees to embark upon projects without having made 
an adequate effort to make certain that in the eyes of the ex per ts such 
projects could be regarded as being in the public interest. What evi- 
dence have you found in your experience of the way in which the 
public interest was taken into consideration before decisions were made 
in an effort to serve this interest ? 

Dr. Briggs. I am not competent to speak, Mr. Chairman, about the 
operation of all of the foundations. But as I have said in my state- 
ment, there is no evidence that the Ford fund has consulted the repre- 
sentatives of the public They have consulted pnly advisers of their 
own selection. - ...■-..-• 

The Chairman. That was all. - ■■<• 

Mr. Goodwin. I have only one question, Mr. dhairman. 


I preface that a little, perhaps, by a brief observation that my 
belief is that one chief justification for the use of these collosal sums 
of money tax exempt is that by the use of that money things may 
be done for the general good which cannot be done by the expenditure 
of public funds. Assuming, also, that one thing much to be desired 
is to forestall Federal aid to eduction, then in order to help out in 
that line State departments of education certainly should be encour- 
aged to use their funds and funds made available to them to the best 
possible advantage. 

Now, if that is true, then these foundations, using their money for 
the general purpose of education, would naturally, I would say, be 
expected to work with State departments of education to the end that 
public funds available to the State departments might be released for 
other purposes. 

What is your estimate as to what this fund of which you are speak- 
ing has been doing along that line? Has there been a spirit of 
cooperation with State department of education? 

Dr. Briggs. There has not. There is only one instance in which 
this fund has made an appropriation that looks to the end that you 
mentioned and that was an appropriation to the State of New Mexico 
to finance the high-school education of gifted boys who could other- 
wise not go to school. But that was not directly and not with the 
initiation and cooperation of the State department. 

On the other hand, the General Education Board some years ago 
responded to the appeal of the Southern States for help in initiating 
research department in their State departments of education, which 
the public was not willing to support at that time. And so the 
General Education Board appropriated money which was used by 
the State departments to organize and continue the statistical divi- 
sions until the public was convinced of the wisdom of taking them over, 
which they did. 

Does that answer your question ? 

Mr. Goodwin. Yes. 

Mr. Wormser. I would like, Mr. 'Chairman, to ask a few questions. 

Mr. Hats. Just a moment, I have a few questions. 

The Chairman - . Since we have asked the questions, perhaps Mr. 
Hays would like to ask some questions. 

Mr. Hays. Dr. Briggs, are you a member of the NEA? 

Dr. Briggs. I am. 

Mr. Hats. Do you believe the charge is true that the aim of the 
NEA is to create a monopoly over United States education? 

Dr. Briggs. I do not. 

Mr. Hays. "Well, that is something, I am glad to have that. That 
is a charge that was made here on page 20 of Mr. Dodd's statement. 

Would you say the charge is true or untrue that the NEA and other 
educaional agencies with which it cooperates are characterized by 
one common interest, namely, the planning and control of certain 
aspects of American life through a combination of "the Federal Gov- 
ernment and education ? . 

Dr. Briggs. I don't know what that means, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. Neither do I. But I thought perhaps jou would, since 
you are an educator. That is another charge that was made 
against the NEA. It is that it and other educational agencies with 
which it cooperates are characterized by one common interest, namely, 


the planning and control of certain aspects of American life through 
a combination of the Federal Government and education. 

You do not find any evidence in your tenure in the NEA of any 
such thing? 

Dr. Beiggs. Not in the slightest. There has been an effort on the 
part of the National Education Asosciation to get funds from the 
Congress for the aid of States of low educational standards. If that 
is what it means, why that is true. 

May I just add, so far as I see, there is an extreme lack of coordina- 
tion between the National Education Association and even its oto 
subordinate associations. 

Now I am a member of the National Association of Secondary 
School Principals, and I have been prominent since its organization, 
and I was one of the founders of it. I would say that the National 
Education Association has had practically no influence on the policies 
and the program of that association. 

Mr. Hats. What you are saying then just tends to be the apposite 
of the statement I read ? 

Dr. Briggs. If I understand it. 

Mr. Hays. If I understand it, I would agree that it does. 

Well, now, there is another change that I have heard against the- 
NEA, that is that the result of the Work of the NEA and other educa- 
tional organizations with which it has Worked over the years— »this i» 
the quote : 

Had an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student 
from matriculation to the consummation of his education. 

In other words, to put that in common-e very-day language, as I 
get it, that is that the NEA has set about to lay out a planned curricu- 
lum to indoctrinate these students^ from the day they go into school 
until the day they get out, with their ideas, 

Would you say that is a fair charge? 

Dr. Briggs. Well, I will have to back up to answer that question. 
Of course, the NEA and all teachers try to indoctrinate their children 
to tell the truth and to be honest and to be loyal to the Amerie»n (gov- 
ernment, and to learn the meaning of allegiance, and to live up to it. 
That is indoctrination, and if thai is what that means, it is guilty. 

If on the, other hand, if you mean the statement means that in that 
the NEA or any of its subordinate organizations has attempted a 
curriculum to indoctrinate contrary to the generally accepted program 
of American education, I would deny it absolutely. 

Mr. Hays. All right. In other words, you say they do try to in- 
doctrinate their students with what we are commonly calling Ameri- 
canism, but you deny absolutely that they try to indoctrinate them 
with anything that is un-American. 

Dr. Briggs. I certainly do. 

Mr. Hays. Thank you. 

Now, there is another charge made against the NEA, that it tends 
to criticize strongly anyone wno dares to doubt the validity of its con- 
clusions. Do you think that is a fair charge? 

Dr. Briggs. It doesn't have any conclusions, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. You know, Dr. Briggs, I think you— I would like to talk 
further with you, because I have been a member of the NEA, too, and 
that is just the same thing that I thought about it. 

106 TAX-fcxEMPT iWrNDATroSris 

Then there is another charge made that the NRA in cooperation 
with other educational agencies, and the great foundations, have pro- 
vided this country with what 'is- tantamount to a national system of 
education, under the tight control of organizations and persons little 
known to the American public. 

Dr. Briggs. Well, if you would ask Dr. Carr about the appropria- 
tions that the NEA has got from foundations, I think that you would 
find, that they are practically nil. The NEA has been one organiza- 
tion that has profited very little from appropriations by the founda- 

Mr. Hats. In other words, you would say that there is nothing to 
this charge that the foundations and the NEA and other educational 
agencies have got a sort of a tightly knit superdirectorate that no one 
knows who they are ? 

Dr. Briggs. Well, you have three units there, the foundations, the 
NEA, and other organizations. What organizations are included? 

Mr. Hays. That is a question I cannot answer, I am quoting from 
some of the testimony that has gone on here and I am as much in the 
dark about it as you are. ^ 

Dr. BrIggs. I certainly am in the dark, because the NEA and the 
foundations don't cooperate. Whether the NEA cooperates with 
other agencies or not, no one can say until the other agencies are 
named. ' 

Mr. Hats. Now, Dr. Briggs, what was the name of this group again, 
the advisory committee of the Ford Fund ? 

Dr. Briggs, Yes i; the advisory committee of the Ford Fund for the 
•Advancement of Education. , 

; Mr, Hats. How many members were there of that advisory board ? 

• Dr. Briggs. I think there were 9 or 10. 

Mr. Hats. Do you think the other members agree with your con- 
clusions, as you have read them here 1 

• Dr, Briggs. Mr. Hays, they are friends of mine, and I would like 
to be excused from answering that question, 

- Mr. Hats. Do you think it woulclbe fair if we asked them to come 
in and tell us what they think about it ? 

Dr. Briggs. May I cite a paragraph of my statement? 

Mr. Hays. I wish that you would, just, because I cannot keep it all 
in mind. . 

1 Dr. Briggs. I have said in my statement, which I read, that unfor- 
tunately there are people who, through the expectation of grants from 
"funds, are afraid to criticize them. 
" Mr. Hats. Do you mean by that statement— — 

Dr. Briggs. I don't mean anything. . 

Mr. Hats. You do not want to indict your fellow members? 

Dr. Briggs. I would also state that there are some verjr able per- 
sonnel in that committee, very able people, but it is interesting to note 
that one has teen put in charge of a $2 million project of the Ford 
Foundation, and it is interesting to note that another One represents 
the Arkansas project which I don't like. . , 

It is also. interesting to note that another ,one has been employed as 
an adviser, pf the Ford Fund. : That is a "guaranty of 200 days of 
Service during the year. It is also , interesting to note that anptpie*, 
fourth member of tfie committee, was employed! Or a year' as chairman 


of one of the committees developing the Ford Fund project, and so on. 

Mr. Hays. You are about the only unemployed one on the commit- 

Dr. Briggs. May I again cite the paragraph of my statement. It 
has been said, or it may be said that I am disgruntled because my 
pol icies and projects have not been approved. That is not important. 
What is important is the list of criticisms that are leveled at the Ford 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, I made a little note about that disgruntled thing, 
and I kind of disagree with you. I think probably that is the first 
place we might be in serious disagreement. 

I think if you are testifying about an organization, whether you, 
are disgruntled with them or not might have some bearing on it. 

Mr, Wormser. Mr. Chairman-^this applies to what you say. 

Mr. Hats. Now just a moment, I have some more' questions. I am 
more than sligtitly interested in this, as I got it from hearing your 
statement read, and I will admit I do riot know anything about this. 
But one of your indictments seemed to be that this fund thought there 
was too many professional courses required of teachers and not enough 
cultural; is that a fair assumption of what you said? i 

Dr. Briggs. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. Would you think it would be more important for a' 
teacher '.'-of French to know French ot to know the psychology and, 
philosophy of education? 

Dr. Briggs. He could not teach French without knowing French, 
of course. , 

Mr, Hats: I am afraid that some of the universities are turning out 
teachers who hate a lot of required courses, and I might tell you that 
I spent about 2 years taking them, and I cannot remember offhand 
the name of any professor, except one, or anything they said. 

Dr. Briggs. You did not take my courses. 

Mr. Hats^ I am sure that I Would have remembered some of yours. 
But a great many of those so-called courses in professional education 
to me, as I saw it then, and as I look back pn it now, were a complete 
waste of my time. 

Dr. Brigjss. May I again cite my statement? 

Mr. Hats. Surely. 

Dr. BKiGGg. I said it is quite possible that in the rapid development 
of these' prof essional institutions that there are courses that are waste- 
ful arid that there is instruction which is poor. We are trying to find 
Out what is a proper balance between cultural demands for education, 
and deinands for professional education. 

I think this objective study that I proposed would take care of that. 
It would show pp the sham, and I admit that there is sham and waste, 
as you found out, in professional courses, and there is some in liberal 
arts colleges, too. I judge you went to a liberal arts college, did you 

Mr. Hats. I did not want to get the name of it in the record, in any 
unfavorable light, but it was Ohio State University, and I suppose it is 
considered a liberal arts college. It has a number of colleges, as you 
know. . 

Dr. Briggs. Well, you found some courses that were not much good 
in theliberal arts division, did yon not ? 

Mr. Hays. Yes, I think so, and I would not want to name tfc<«- 


.,Dr., Bpjgcis. W$ will not press that any more than you would not 
prsssthe question about my fellow members on the advisory commit- 

. Bu^^r^at,;! am saying is, is that we do not know what thejpraper 
balan^jsyiyetween knowing French and knowing how to teach French. 
I have known many people who knew their subjects and could not 
teach, and unfortunately, I have known some people who had some 
techniques of teaching and did not know their subjects. 

Mr. Hays. Now, I think we are in agreement on that. A lot of peo- 
ple know how to teach but do not know what they are supposed to 

Dr. Briggs. And other people know what to teach and do not know 
how to teach. 

Mr. Hays. As I get it, your main indictment then of this organiza- 
tion is thai; you think, in your opinion, that it stresses too much the 
cultural to the lack of the professional type of education, is that right ? 

Dr. Briggs. No; they assumed to know that that is the answer, and 
I do not think anybody knows the answer now. I think that we have 
got to find out what the proper balance between professional and cul- 
tural education is. Just because you have the administration of mil- 
lions of dollars <loes not bestow on you the wisdom to make that 

Mr. Hays. You, made a statement there, as I made a quick note on it 
here, that lead me to believe that you were saying that educators 
are intimidated by the Ford Foundation. 

Dr. Briggs. I do. 

Mr. Hays. Well,, now, to what extent would you say they are? 
As far as I would know out in my Stat© I would, guess that 99.99 
percent of educators don't even know that there is such an or^h- 

Dr. Briggs. Oh, yes, they do. 

Mr. Hays. As this subgroup of the Ford Foundation, so they couldn't 
very well intimidate them ? 

Dr. Briggs, 99.9 pereent of them have made application for grants. 

Mr. Hays. I am afraid that that is a bald statement that is open 
to serious question. 

The Chairman. You are speaking figuratively now ? 

Dr. Briqgs. Yes, that is a hyperbole, but MacCauley said you had to 
speafe: in hyperbole in order to get the point over. No, Mr. Hays, I 
wish I had brought with me the file of letters i received since my 
resignation was published. They came from all over the country. 
Time after time these men have said, "We feei exactly as you do, but 
we don't dare say anything because if we do, if we make an application 
for a grant from the fund, what we say will be prejudiced." 

Mr. Hays. Who are these men, are they college professors, second- 
ary school teachers, or who ? 

Dr. Briggs. Well, within a month, two college presidents have said 
that to me, and I don't know how many college professors, and super- 
intendents of schools, and high school principals. 

Mr. Hays. Well, of course, within a month I have talked to a few 
college presidents who say just the opposite, and that this wholg, in- 
vestigation is stupid and what should they do with the questionnaire. 
It is costing them a lot of money and they thmlk it is silly, and 
that is a matter of opinion. 


Dr. Briggs. Wait a minute, I am not sure we are talking about 
the same thing. Have these people that you have talked to been vocal 
in their criticism of foundations ? 

Mr. Hays. No, they haven't. 

Dr. Briggs. That is the point ; that is what I am saying. 

Mr. Hays. That is exactly the point; there are two schools of 
thought on this. 

Dr. Briggs. I thought that you thought we were in disagreement. 
I think we are in agreement that these people who have been en- 
trusted with responsibility in the administering of colleges and uni- 
versities and school systems, are afraid to express their criticism odi 
the foundations lest they prejudice their chances of their institutions 
for help. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I think the way to get the story on that is to have 
them come in and testify as to that and I don't see how we can accept 
any outsider's opinion, yours or mine, about that. 

Dr. Briggs. It is immaterial whether you accept it or not. I made 
the statement on the basis of the letters that I have had, and the 
statements that have been made tome. I thought that is what you 
wanted me to do. 

Mr. Hays. That is all. 

The Chairman. There is just one question I wanted to raise which 
is for you, Mr. Hays. In your earlier questioning, you appeared t® be 
quoting language which I presume will appear in quotes in the record, 
and with those quotations from the statement which Mr. Dodd made 
to the committee. 

Mr. Hays. Yes ; I can give you the page number, 

The Chairman. Or the preliminary draft. 

Mr. Hays. The first question whiclv the; witness answered, was, "Do 
you believe the charge is true that the aim of the NEA is to create a 
monopoly over education." That is on page 20. That is the second 
question. The first question was, "Are you a member of the NEA," 
which, of course, was not a quotation. 

The next question, "Is the charge true or untrue that the NEA and 
other educational agencies with which it cooperates are characterized 
by one common interest, namely, the planning and control of certain 
aspects of American life through a combination of the Federal Govern- 
ment and education," and that is on page %% 

The next question, which I won't take the time to read.., comes, in Mr. 
Dodd's statement on page 23, and the next one on page 24, and I don't 
happen to have noted the page number of the last one, also a quote, but 
it is there. 

The Chairman. I wondered whether you quoted from the statement 
he made to the committee. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, Professor Briggs would like to get 
away today if he possibly can. 

Mr. HAYSi Would you have any obj ection at this point if we recessed 
for lunch, and we find this out this afternoon ? 

The Chairman. Do you have further questions? 

Mr. Hays. I haven't had a chance to read his statement, and I might 
have. There were several things that occurred to me at the time, but 
I didn't have the exact language and I didn't want to question him. 

Mr. Wormser. I would waive any further questioning, Mr. Hays, 
and I would just ask to introduce his letter of resignation to the fund 

49720 — 54— pt. 1—8 


for the advancement of education. Would you identify it, Prof essor 

Dr. Briggs. Yes ; that is a photostat of it. 

Mr. Wormser. I would like to save him the burden of reading it and 
may it be copied into the record ? 

Mr. Hats. Before I say whether or not I would object to that, I 
suppose that is the same letter that is in this little magazine, School 
and Society. Is that essentially the same thing? 

Dr. Briggs. I think the School and Society editor omitted a little 
of it in order to get it into his space, but it is practically the same, Mr. 

Mr. Hats. Now, before we introduce this in, do you have any plans, 
Mr. Wormser, to call any of these other people who sit on this com- 
mittee, or did sit on this committee with Dr. Briggs ? 

Mr. Wormser. No; I do not, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Well, I think in order to keep these hearings objective, 
it might be nice if we had 1 or 2 of them to come in, at least 1 of them, 
and just pick 1 at random. 

Dr. Briggs. Don't pick one at random. 

Mr. Hats. I want to pick him at random. Now, look, Doctor, I 
don't want you, to pick the one, and I am sure you would try to pick 
one who would agree with you. 

Dr. Briggs. I would suggest that— — '■■ 

Mr. Hats. Can you name one who disagrees with you ? 

Dr. Briggs. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Hats. That is what I would like to hear. 

Dr. Briggs. Would you like the name? 

The Chairman-. Well, now— — 

Mr. Hats. I am asking this for my own information. 

The Chairman. I certainly have no objection* but I was thinking 
about the name of the person, the individual. 

Mr. Hats. I can undoubtedly get the list of people^ and I will pick 
one out. 

The Chairman. I don't want to put someone else's name in the 
record, in what somebody might construe as ah odious position. 

Mr. Hats. Could we have an agreement that we will call in One of 
these other people ? 

The Chairman. So far as I personally am concerned, if it fits in. 

Mr. Hats. We will make it fit in. 

Dr. Briggs. lean give you the name personally, if you would like. 

The Chairman. But I see no objection to this letter of resignation 
going into the record and it would occur to me it is pertinent to his 
testimony. ■,.:■■ 

Mr. Hats. I may object to it, because you objected to my putting 
into the record something that I thought was pertinent this morning 
and I am only trying to keep these hearings objective. Now, if you 
will agree we are going to call in at least one other member of this 
committee and get his views, that is one thing, but if we are only 
going to get one side of it then I will tell you right now, I am going 
to object. 

Dr. Briggs. I have said practically everything in the statement that 
I said in this letter of resignation, and so I think it is immaterial. 

The Chairman. I assumed that you had. 


Mr. Wormser. I would like to bring^ into the record then, if Pro- 
cessor Briggs will confirm it, that he resigned entirely voluntarily, and 
lie was made a member of this advisory committee of the fund for the 
advancement of education and served some years, and resigned with a 
letter of resignation to Dr. Faust, the president. It is dated March 
16, 1954. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? If not, you are 
•excused, Doctor. 

Mr. Wormser. May we take it for granted that subpenas are con- 
tinued if a witness is not able to appear today, it will carry over to the 
next day ? 

Mr. Hays. May I have an understanding that the next witness who 
comes in without a prepared statement and you undertake to question 
him and get him out of here, all the same morning, there won't be any 
meeting. If the minority isn't here, there can't be a meeting, and the 
minority is not going to be here unless we are going to run this thing 
on an adequate basis so we have a chance to find out what it is all about. 

Mr. Wormser. Do you mean a witness can't testify without a state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Hats. Let him come back when I have had a chance to look at 
his statement so I can ask him some questions about it. 

Mr. Wormser. The next witness will not have a prepared statement. 

Mr. Hats. You had better make plans to let us look at his state- 
ment and question him later. 

The Chairman. He can be made available for questioning later ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. 

The Chairman. The committee will meet in this same room to- 
morrow morning, Wednesday, and Thursday morning we will have to 
reserve the announcement of the place of the meeting, and we may be 
able to meet here. If not, we will make the announcement tomorrow. 
Being a special committee, we are more or less in a difficult situation 
when it comes to meeting places. We will recess now. 

(Whereupon, the committee recessed at 12 : 30 p. m., to reconvene on 
Wednesday morning.) 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1954 

House ot Representatives, 
Special Committee to Investigate 

Tax Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
429, House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Eeece (chairman of the 
special subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece, Hays, Goodwin, and Pfost. 

Also present: Rene A. Wormser, general counsel; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst; and John Marshall, Jr., chief clerk to the special 

The Chaieman. The committee will please come to order. 

Who is the next witness, Mr. Wormser ? 

Mr. Wormseb. Dr. Hobbs, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Dr. Hobbs, will you please stand and be sworn. 
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in this 
proceeding shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I do. 

Mr, Hays. Mr. Chairman, just in view of the statement you made 
on the opening day about all of the witnesses being sworn, I think it 
would be well that the record show that Dr. Briggs yesterday was not 

The Chairman. Professor Briggs was sworn and I think the 
record will soshow, or at least it should show. 

Mr. Hats. On discussing it last night, we thought he had not been. 
We started to swear him and we got off the track. 

The Chairman. I have not looked at the record. 

Mr. Koch. Page 251. 

Mr. Hats. He was sworn. 

The Chairman. Yes ; I did swear him in. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wormser, do you wish to make a preliminary statement of any 

Mr. Wormser. Yes ; I want to say that Dr. Hobbs will testify chiefly 
on the nature of social-science research. I think we may take it for 
granted, and I think the foundations will agree, that social-science 
research in this country now is financed virtually entirely by the foun- 
dations and the United States Government. There is very little pri- 
vately financed social research. 

Dr. Hobbs will analyze some of this research for methods and type 
and discuss some of the results of the type of research that is used. 




The Chairman. As I understand it, Professor Hobbs, you do not 
have a prepared statement. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In view of the fact that you do not have a pre- 
pared statement, the committee will be free to propound questions as 
you go along. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When a witness has a prepared statement, we 
ordinarily then defer questioning until the witness has concluded with 
his prepared statement. But where that is not the case, we feel it is 
better procedure to be questioned as you go along. You may proceed. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire whether or not the 
witness is available later in the event that we might feel after we have 
seen the record that we want to interrogate him concerning the part of 
his testimony which we had not caught when he gave his testimony % 

The Chairman. I assume he could be made available, could he not? 

Mr. Wormser. I think Dr. Hobbs is prepared to stay tomorrow if 
we want him. I am sure he would be glad to come back if necessary. 

May I ask you first to identify yourself with a short biographical 
note ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I took undergraduate work at what was then Penn State 
College. It is now Penn State University. I took graduate work 
at the University of Pennsylvania and received a Ph. D. in 1941. . I re- 
ceived a Ph. D. in sociology there. I began teaching sociology and 
social science in 1936 at the University of Pennsylvania, and except 
for 3 years in the military service, I taught continuously. 

Is that sufficient ? 

Mr. Wormser. What is your position now? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am an assistant professor at the University of Penn- 

Mr. Wormser. Of sociology ? v 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, you have written^ quite a number of arti- 
cles and several books. I am interested particularly in your most 
recent book which is called Social Problems and Scientism. I think 
you might launch into a discussion of "scientism" giving your expla- 
nation of how you use that term. 

Dr. Hobbs. All right, sir. There is, or at least there seems to be, 
and I think most people would agree with this who have been involved 
in the matter in teaching or studying, there is a good deal of confu- 
sion about the term "science." There is a tendency to designate as 
science a number of things which are not science, or at least there is 
serious question as to whether they are scientific or not. So I at- 
tempted to analyze this problem by going to the books dealing with 
scientific methods to find out in what way it could be analyzed and 

By way of background, I would just like to mention a few things 
which are usually included in scientific investigation. 

The method of science is one which has been tremendously success- 
ful in solving a variety of types of problems, but, as we all know, it 
began in fields such as physics and chemistry and astronomy. 


Mr. Hats. Are those what you would term, Doctor, the exact 

Dr. Hobbs. That term is frequently applied to them, although tech- 
nically there would be some question if you strained the term "exact" 
even in those areas. Some of them are not exact. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, what you are saying is that there is no 
such thing as an exact science ? 

Dr. Hobbs. In absolute terms I think most scientists would agree 
with that. 

This method involves, for one thing, controlled observation. By 
that is meant that if I express my opinion on something, my belief on 
how to raise children, you express your opinion, we can debate these 
opinions back and forth from now until kingdom come, and in no way 
that will necessarily reach agreement. That, of course, was the situa- 
tion in philosophy for many centuries. But with the scientific 
method, they gradually learned to use this technique of controlled 
observation, a means whereby anybody, no matter what his feelings 
on the matter, no matter what his beliefs or prejudices, in observing 
the results, is compelled to agree as to them. 

In order to use this technique of controlled observation, which is 
fundamental in scientific procedure, you have to reduce the things 
that you are studying to quantitative units — units which are quantita- 
tive, units which are not only quantitative, but which are homogene- 
ous, and units which are stable. A quantitative unit is a thing in turn 
which can be measured in terms of weight, distance, velocity. In 
science as you know, they have gone a step further and developed 
instruments, ammeters, speedometers, scales, things of that type, by 
means of which these units can be measured with a sufficient degree of 
precision to justify the type of experiment which is at that time being 

Congressman Hays, that is the general context of exactness or pre- 
cision in science for the purpose of experiments. The measurements 
must be exact. But that does not mean exact in the sense of perf ecta- 

Mr. Hays. What I am trying to get at is this : Is there any science 
in which after these experiments the conclusions which are arrived at 
can be termed "exact" ? 

Dr. Hobbs. The conclusions can be measured and in terms of the 
purposes for which the measurements are being made, they can be said 
to be exact. There will inevitably be some element of error which 
scientists always attempt to reduce to the least possible terms. 

Mr. Hats. I believe you said that you are now teaching sociology 
and social science ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am teaching sociology ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Is there such a thing as social science ? 

Dr. Hobbs. In the sense in which the term "science" is applied to the 
physical sciences, I think it is extremely questionable that the great 
bulk of the work in sociology, history, political science, could be desig- 
nated as beingscientific. In that sense, I would say very little. 

Mr. Hays. But that is a term that has become quite common, and is 
used rather generally to bulk all of the sciences dealing with the 
sociological aspects of civilization, is it not ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. The terms "social science" and "politir 
cal science" and similar terms are very widely used. I think it would 


be desirable for one thing, if the public were to understand that the 
designation "science" in that context is somewhat different than the 
designation in the context as applied to the usually called physical 
sciences. ■ 

Mr. Hats. In other words, it was never intended to connotate an 
-exact science. 

Dr. Hobbs. Unfortunately, in many of the writings that connota- 
tion is not only present but it is emphasized. For example, you will 
see books on social science — textbooks on sociology — coming out with 
drawings of calipers on the advertising blurbs, test tubes on the cover, 
to give the teachers the impression that this is science in the sense 
that the term is used in physical science. Unfortunately, there is a 
great deal of that, and it confuses not only the general public but 
many of the people in the field who are not too familiar with scientific 
methods themselves. 

The Chairman. You have read the statement which Mr. Dodd made 
to the committee? 

Dr. Hobbs. I have not, sir. 

The Chairman-. You are not familiar with it, then? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am not, sir. 

The Chairman. He raised the question of some trouble arising 
from the premature acceptance of the social sciences. You are not 
ready to comment on that. If you are, I would be interested in hav- 
ing you comment. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would, sir. I do intend to comment after I have given 
this background which I think is essential. 

The Chairman. Very well ; you may proceed. 

Dr. Hobbs. As for reducing human behavior, particularly the 
aspects of human behavior which are most significant in the relation- 
ships between people and in civilized society, to attempt to reduce 
those to quantitative units is extremely difficult, and for the most part 
at the present time impossible. 

With human beings there are some things which are quantitative ; 
that is, your bodily temperature could be called a quantitative thing, 
which in turn can be measured with an instrument, the thermometer. 
Similarly with your blood pressure, your corpuscle count, the propor- 
tion between white and red, the number of hairs on your head, and 
things like that, can be counted. Sometimes it is pretty easy to count 
the number of hairson your head. The other things, though, like 
the sentiments — patriotism, love, bravery, cowardice, nonesty, things 
of that sort — have never been' reduced to quantitative units. There 
is still a large element of the qualitative in them. That is, if you say 
you are patriotic, your patriotism cannot be measured in precise units 
which will be agreed upon by all the observers. 

Mr. Hats. Professor, I think we are agreed on that. Is there any 
argument on that score ? 

Dr. Hobbs. The impression is given in many works, and I will cite 
some of them, that that is not the case. It is a crucial and funda- 
mental point which I want to give by way of background. 

Mr. Hats. You mean you say that you can measure patriotism? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is implied. 

Mr. Hats. I was aware that there are people who think you can 
measure patriotism, but it is always according to their standards. 


Dr. Hobbs. Unfortunately, that is the same way with some who call 
themselves social scientists. 

Mr. Hats. That has been true always. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. As long as there have been human beings. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. Maybe they did not call it patriotism, but whatever it is. 

Dr. Hobbs. Loyalty or whatever you call it. Then the other item, 
the matter of the stability of the units which are being studied, also, 
I think, is quite crucial. If you are studying electrons, if you are 
studying matter, or the behavior of matter, the method of study you 
employ, the amount of the time you spend on studying it, the attitude 
which you have while you are making the study, does not affect the 
object which is under study; that is, it you think electrons are nasty 
or unpleasant or things like that, that is not going to affect the be- 
havior of electrons. But unfortunately, with human beings again, 
sometimes the very fact that a study is being made can change their 
behavior. That is always a possibility which you have to be very 
consciously aware of. An illustration of that of course would be 
the Kinsey report. The mere fact that you ask people questions in 
the rapid fire nonemotional manner which Professor Kinsey says he 
uses, would put a different aura on sexual behavior than might other- 
wise be present. It could change your attitude toward sex. 

Similarly, if you are studying juvenile delinquents, and if your 
attitude in the study is that delinquency is caused by their environ- 
ment, or caused by the fact that the mother was too harsh with the 
children in their youth, or overwhelmed them with affection, then 
there is always the possibility — and some investigators contend that 
this is a fact— the delinquents themselves become convinced that this 
is the case. They begin to blame their parents, their early environ- 
ment, and the situation which you have attempted to study has been 
changed in the very process of making the study. 

Mr. Hats. As I get it, then, you are saying in effect that there are 
dangers in studying hazards. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is right. 

Mr. Hays. But you would not advise that we give up studying juven- 
ile delinquency ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Absolutely not. These things certainly need study. 

The Chairman. Professor, since you referred to the Kinsey report, 
what do you consider the significance of the fact that the initial Kin- 
sey study was financed by a foundation grant ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, I intend to use the Kinsey report as an illustration 
of some of these pseudoscientific techniques, and as an illustration of 
the possible influence which this type of study may have. In that con- 
text, I would prefer to take it up that way. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. You are saying that Dr. Kinsey is a pseudoscientist, is 
that right? 

Dr. Hobbs. "No, sir. 

Mr. Hays. He has used the pseudoscientific approach. 

Dr. Hobbs. I said that he has used techniques which are pseudoscien- 

Mr. Hays. I would not know anything about that. I am not ac- 
quainted with his books or techniques. 


Dr. Hobbs. I am, sir, and I will explain something about them a little 
bit later. 

So with the study of human behavior you have the difficulty that in 
many instances it is virtually impossible to reduce the type of be- 
havior to a quantitative unit. There is always the hazard that the 
mere fact that you are studying the thing and the way in which you 
study that may change the very thing you are studying. 

I will cite specific illustrations of that a little bit later. 

The findings of the study can affect the type of behavior which is 
being studied. Again if you come out and say in your findings that 
sexual behavior of a wide variety is prevalent and so on, that in it- 
self can — do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that studies 
should not be published because of this factor, but it should be 
recognized that the findings of a study can affect the type of behavior 
which is being studied. 

Mr. Hays. To get the emphasis off sex and on something else that 
I am more interested in, say, juvenile delinquency, you would probably 
agree with me that the very fact that the newspapers constantly say 
or have been recently that juvenile delinquency is increasing, and it 
is becoming an ever-greater problem, might have a tendency to make 
some juveniles think about delinquency. But on the other hand, 
we cannot hide our heads in the sand and say it does not exist, can 

Dr. Hobbs. I certainly believe that the facts in this case, those 
findings are from the uniform crime reports of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, and they are factual findings, and they certainly 
should be publicized. But they are not publicized in the newspaper 
as being scientific findings. That is the extent of delinquency is not 
being published as being a scientific finding. If it were, then it could 
have a different effect. 

Mr. Hays. I am inclined to agree with you that it could have an 
effect, and perhaps various effects. I think you would perhaps agree 
with my thinking that when you are dealing with juveniles or the 
subjects in Dr. Kinsey's books you are dealing with human beings, 
and there are just as many variations as the people you are dealing 
with ; is that not right ? 

Dr. Hobbs. There are tremendous variables which have to be taken 
into consideration, which make the problem of a study of human 
beings an extremely difficult one. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, if you approach a study of a thousand 
juveniles, you might get conceivably 1,000 different reactions to the 
same situation. The chances are that you would not, but it is possible 
that you could. 

Dr. Hobbs. It is quite possible. 

Mr. Hays, Just the same as every one of the thousand have different 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. With this scientific method being developed, 
another thing you have to have is that even if you are able to reduce 
the things you are studying to quantitative, uniform, and stable units, 
then merely doing that does not constitute the scientific method. 
Merely counting things is not science. The philosopher of science, 
Alfred North Whitehead, said in effect, if we had merely counted 
things, we would have left science exactly in the state in which it 
was 1,000 years ago. 


Unfortunately, also, in social science, you do get this tendency 
which is particularly pronounced now to rely, I would say, and many 
of the outstanding people in the field will agree with me, an over- 
emphasis on the tendency merely to count. Again, do not misunder- 
stand me. I do not say that none of that should be done. It is a 
matter of degree. 

Mr. Goodwin. I do not understand, Doctor, what you mean by say- 
ing that the result of a count is not something exact. If you take a 
complete count of it you have the full picture, have you not? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir, but to go back to Congressman Hays' question 
about juvenile delinquency,, if you were merely going to count these 
deliquents and measure the lengths of their noses and the size and 
shape of their ears, and so on, you could make such measurements 
which might be exact to a high degree. You could make such meas- 
urements for a long, long time. I think you will agree you probably 
would not find out anything basic about delinquency. 

Mr. Hats. You mean the size of their noses has nothing to do with it. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would not venture to hazard a guess. I don't know. 
I would say probably not. 

Mr. Hays. I would be brave and guess that it would not. 

The Chairman. But as I understand, you mean to say that it would 
not get at what might be the basic causes of juvenile delinquency. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would be extremely doubtful, of course. 

Mr. Hays. We would all agree on that, would we not? 

Dr. Hobbs. In other words, mere accounting is not enough. Even if 
you can count with relative accuracy, you still have to have a hypo- 
thesis. A hypothesis is a statement as nearly as exact as you can 
make it, a statement of what you are going to try to prove, or what 
you are going to try to disprove, and then you make your controlled 
observations. Then you will find that the hypothesis is not valid or 
you find that it has been validated by your observations, by your in- 
ductions and by your deductions. 

The final test of scientific method is verification. This, of course, 
is particularly vital when you are dealing with human behavior and 
where the findings of the study could influence human behavior. In 
these cases, the findings should be verified not only by the person who 
made the study himself, but they should be verified by other people 
who are skeptical of it before you make any attempt to change human 
behavior or the society on the basis of the supposed scientific studies. 

One test of verification is prediction. Even here you have to be 
extremely careful because sometimes what seems to be a prediction is 
merely a lucky guess. That is, if I predict the Yankees are going to 
win the pennant this year, they might win the pennant — I am a little 
bit afraid they will— but the fact that my prediction came true does 
not prove that I had worked it out scientifically. A prediction could 
be a lucky guess, it could be a coincidence, or it could be the result of 
factors other than the factors which you are investigating under your 

Another common mistake is to confuse projection with prediction. 
] could predict that women will wash. on Monday and iron on Tues- 
day. When I am doing that, I am not making a prediction, but I am 
assuming merely that the pattern of behavior which held true in the 
past will continue to hold true in the future. Many of the so-called 


predictions of population growth are merely projections in this sense, 
X'ather than scientific predictions. 

Of course, as you know, most of those projections themselves have 
been erroneous because the pattern of behavior does change. 

Mr. Hats. That is one of the reasons, though, is it not, Professor, 
that women have always been interesting. It has always been unsafe 
to predict about them. 

Dr. Hobbs. That, Congressman, is a situation which neither you nor 
I would like to change. Let us not make that too scientific. 

Mr. Hays. I agree with you. 

Dr. Hobbs. With the scientific method having been so successful, 
and then employed 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, may I interrupt to ask you, is not experi- 
ment an essential mechanism in ordinary natural science whereas it 
is unavailable in social sciences ? 

Dr. Hobbs. As a generalization that would be correct, yes. It is 
very much more difficult to set up conditions to conduct a controlled 
experiment in social science than it is in physical science, and the 
ability to set up those controlled experiments in physical science has 
been a keystone in the tremendous success of the physical sciences. 

Mr. Koch. Do you say that in connection with juvenile delinquency 
some social scientists have actually measured noses or something 

Dr. Hobbs. No. I just used that as an extreme illustration. 

With the tremendous success of physical science, particularly as 
the findings of physical science were translated by technologists into 
practical things, like steam engines, and automobiles, and so on, it is 
quite understandable that many people who have been studying and 
have been interested in human behavior, should apply the same meth- 
od — and this is crucial — or should apply what they think is the same 
method, or what they can lead other people to believe is the same 
method. Throughout the history of social science you can see this 
correspondence between the attempts to apply the type of scientific 
method which is at that time successful m science to the study of 
human behavior. 

Mrs. Pfost. Dr. Hobbs, you related a while ago about these habits 
of individuals, such as women washing on Monday and ironing on 
Tuesday. In what manner, now, do you feel that relates to the foun- 
dations, this study that we are making here ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I want to give this background to show the difference — 
and it is an essential difference — between science as it is used in the 
physical sciences, and science as it is used in the social sciences, which 
is the type of thing that is sponsored by the foundations. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, I have always been aware of that difference. 
Do you think that there is a general unawareness of it? 

Dr. Hobbs. I believe that is quite common. I am sorry if I am 
taking too long. 

Mr. Hats. No, take all the time you want. 

Dr. Hobbs. I do want to give this background. Then I will give 
specific illustrations of the point you have in mind, where there is a 
definite effort to convince people that the two things are the same. 
I will bring that out. 

Mr. Hats. There has always been a loose term— at least I have 
always been familiar with it — in which we differentiated between the 


so-called, and I used the word "so-called" there, exact sciences and 
the social sciences. I have always understood that social sciences, if 
you want to use that terra, or sociologists would be a better term, 
are groping their way along knowing they have no exact way to 
measure the thing they are studying. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is, of course, the way, with many. But unfortu- 
nately there are some, and this is particularly pronounced in text- 
books, for example, where the impression is given, and sometimes the 
flat statement is made, that this is science, and that it is the same kind 
of science that exists in the study of physical phenomena. 

Mr. Hays. Yes; but do you not think we are going to have to rely 
somewhat upon the intelligence of the people to differentiate? This 
committee or the Congress cannot legislate what people are going to 
think or what they are going to derive from certain statements in the 
newspapers. It might be desirable— I say very definitely it might be, 
I do not think it would be— but we cannot do it. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would agree with you that the improvement, call it 
the reform, in this should come from within the fields, and not through 
legislation. That is, in the use of such terms as science. The people 
in the fields themselves should govern that* and should be more careful 
in their usage, which may happen. I don't know. But that is not the 
case now. The confusion is greater now than it was in the past. That 
is, the attempt to convince the readers of the textbooks, and trade 
books, is definitely there, and it is on the increase, rather than being 
on the decrease. 

Mr. Hats. Yes; but do you not think any tendency on the part of 
the Congress to try to legislate about that might conceivably get you 
in the situation where you would cut off valuable exploration into the 

Dr. Hobbs. I had no intent of suggesting that in any way. As a 
matter of fact, I explicitly stated otherwise. 

Mr. Hats. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying 
to clarify in my mind and the people who read this hearing just what 
we are discussing here. 

Dr. Hobbs. To legislate in that sense, to tell what words should be 
used, and how they should be used, would be extremely undesirable. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, we could not any more define it than 
you can define it. 

Dr. Hobbs. I think, sir, I can define it. But that does not mean 
that everybody should agree with me in any way. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, it will be your definition. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. Of course, the definition is based on 
the interpretation of the outstanding philosophers of science. I make 
no claim that it is original with me, or unique with me. It is a common 
type of definition. 

So in earlier days, the social scientists or what were then social 
philosophers, tried to apply the type of scientific technique which was 
successful at that time. The success in physical science has been in 
the area of mechanics. So the social philosophers attempted to de- 
scribe human beings in terms of molecules and atoms and things like 
that and contend that human beings came into social groups because 
of factors of centripetal force. They dispersed and came in because 
of factors of electrical attraction. Looking back on that now, we 
would say it was very naive. As the techniques 1 of physical science 


change, the techniques of social science change along with them. That 
is understandable; they want to try to use the techniques which are 
being used in physical science, or want to try to use what seem to be 
the techniques used in physical science. 

Unfortunately, however, many of these techniques — even though 
they may seem to be the same techniques as used in physical sciences — 
in their application to social studies or studies of social behavior, are 
different. It is further unfortunate that the difference is not made 
sufficiently clear to the readers and to the general public. 

Mr. Hats. Right there, do you have any specific suggestions about 
what coud be done about that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I think it should be the burden and the positive re- 
sponsibility of persons making the study and publishing the study. 
If they call it science, it should be their positive responsibility to point 
out the limitations, and not only point them out, but to emphasize 
them to avoid misleading the reader into the belief that it is science 
in the same sense that it is used in physical science. I think it should 
come from the individuals concerned, rather than from legislation. 

Mr. Hats. I am inclined to agree with you, that is a desirable thing, 
but the specific thing I am getting at is ; is there anything we can do 
about it, or is it just something that is desirable, that we would like it 
to happen, and if it does it is fine, and if it does not, that is all right, too ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, what I am leading up to, and I am very sorry it takes 
this long but I think the background is essential, is studies which 
have been sponsored by the foundations which have done, and some 
of them in exaggerated form, the type of thing which you agree and 
I agree should be avoided if it is at all possible, and that is to give 
the impression that the social science in the same sort or virtually the 
same as physical science. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, to avoid giving the impression that it 
is exact. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. And probably prefacing the study by saying that these* 
studies are made under certain conditions, and have arrived at cer- 
tain conclusions but everybody should know they might not be exact,, 
because we are dealing with human beings. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. How about a combination of physical science with 
mental or social? I am thinking about the lie detector. That ap- 
parently is an attempt to measure mechancially what is in a man's- 

Dr. Hobbs. As I understand it, sir, it is not so much an attempt to 
measure what is in his mind, but it is a measure of fluctuations in 
blood pressure. 

Mr. Goodwin". Has not that some relation ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, and to assume from those fluctuations whether he 
is mentally disturbed or concerned or not in a manner which could: 
indicate that he were lying. But it rests on an assumption, and the- 
assumption may be invalid in some cases. In using such devices, that- 
i? something you have to be careful about. 

J would like to cite a number of these studies to emphasize the man- 
ner in which they can and apparently do influence important aspects, 
of human behavior, One of these studies I would like to cite as an in- 
fluence on moral behavior. Another one is as an influence on political 


behavior. A third one is as an influence on military strategy and 
military policy and principles. 

. The first one, the one relating to morality, includes two volumes 
on sexual behavior. The first volume is entitled, Sexual Behavior in 
the Human Male, with the authors being Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell 
B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, published in 1948. The second one, en- 
titled, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, the authors being Al- 
fred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, Paul H. Geb- 
hart, published in 1953. 

In the foreword of these books, it is stated that a grant was made 
to make these studies possible through the Committee for Kesearch 
in Problems of Sex of the National Research Council of the National 
Academy of Sciences, and that the Rockefeller Foundation made 
the grant. 

Professor Kinsey, in connection with his first volume, stated or 
reiterated or emphasized that he was merely interested in finding the 
fact of human sexual behavior. However, in the book (and numerous 
reviewers, have pointed this out) Professor Kinsey departs from mere 
statement of fact of human sexual behavior, and includes numerous 
interpretations, interpretations which do not follow from the type 
of data which he collected. 

Mrs. Pfost. Dr. Hobbs, may I ask you, these books that you are 
relating here, they all have to do with donations that have been made 
by foundations in publishing the books. Is that the reason you are 
enumerating the particular books ? 

Dr. Hobbs. In this case, the grant was apparently made so that the 
study could be conducted. In the second case, the grant was made 
so that the study could be conducted. The book was published by a 
commercial publisher. Whether any grant was made for purposes 
of publication, I do not know. 

Mr. Hays. Dr. Hobbs, I am sure that I am safe in assuming that 
you are implying that these Kinsey reports are not very valuable. 

Dr. Hobbs. I do not mean to imply that, sir. A tremendous amount 
of work was involved in conducting these studies. 

Mr. Hays. But you do more or less imply that the scientific ap- 
proach was not very good. 

Dr. Hobbs. There were numerous statistical fallacies involved in 
both Kinsey reports; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. You had no connection with the Kinsey project in any 
way, have you? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. I have written articles relating to them for 
the American Journal of Psychiatry, but no connection. 

Mr. Hays. You have no desire to promote the sale of the book ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Oh, no. 

Mr. Hays. The reason I ask you that is that all the publicity about 
Kinsey has sort of died down and now we are giving it a new impetus 
here, and I suppose that will sell a few thousand more books. 

Dr. Hobbs. I have no financial interest in that or in any of the 
publishing companies, sir. 

Mrs. Pfost. Dr. Hobbs, you mean to imply that tax-free funds 
were used for the Kinsey report ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. 

Mrs. Pfost. Thank you. 


The Chairman. As I understand, you are raising a question about 
the scientific approach which Dr. Kinsey made in conducting this 
research in the first place, and then some of his comments and con- 
clusions which he wrote into his report, which did not necessarily 
arise from the basis of his research which he had made? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And which might have damaging effect on the 
psychology of the people, particularly the young people of the 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And at the same time undertaking to give to the 
country the overall impression that his findings and his comments 
were based upon a scientific study which had been made, as the basis 
of a grant. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir; a scientific study of the type by implication 
which you have in physics and chemistry, and, therefore, its conclu- 
sions cannot be challenged. 

The Chairman. Enumerating in the preface that it was made by a 
grant from one of the foundations giving it further prestige, possibly, 
that it was of scientific value, and so forth. 

Dr. Hobbs. That would be correct. I have a statement to that effect 
to show that very type of influence, which I will come to a little bit 

Mr. Hats. Dr. Hobbs, I would like to ask you this : Is there any- 
thing in the preface of the Kinsey volumes that says that this is not 
to be taken as a general pattern of behavior for the whole country, 
but just merely for the 5,000 or 3,000, or whatever number of people 
it was that he studied ? 

Dr. Hobbs. In the first volume — that is the volume on males — Kinsey 
employed a technique of projecting his sample, which in that case, 
if my memory serves me correctly, involved 5,300 males — a technique 
of projecting that sample of 5,300 to the entire male population of the 
United States. So the impression throughout the book was conveyed, 
and conveyed very strongly, that the findings — and not only the find- 
ings but the interpretation of the findings— applied to all oi the males 
of the United States. 

In the second volume Kinsey does not use that technique, because it 
was — I would guess the reason he does not use it— because it was criti- 
cized by statisticians and bthers, including myself . 

Mr. Hats. Then you think he has been amenable to criticism? 

Dr. Hobbs. The only acknowledgment that I know of that Professor 
Kinsey has made to criticism — he may have made others than this, but 
this is the only oi*e I know of— where at one time he said one of the 
reasons why people don't interpret me correctly is because they believe 
that the title of my book is "Sexual Behavior of the Human Male," 
when actually the title is "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." I 
could never quite grasp any deep significance of that difference, 
although Professor Kinsey's point apparently was made that there is 
in the field of taxonomy, where he came from before he took up sex, 
that type of title is generally employed. 

The Chairman. So far as the reaction among the public is con- 
cerned, I think there is a very wide feeling that his whole research 
and his publications are just a bunch of claptrap that are not doing 

>mmmft'ttW8ffix$t$- i$& 


anybody &$ good. • Ifcriiight Be -WU-r^Sff sfe ftibsili^iors^fe^^c 

study, but I think m&ri^ plb^ 

from them if it is kept in &4M^^ cBih- 

i m& mm tit ym j &ttfot^i m&-.wvhwb f we? mm waffi^e* 

that is Mactly wh&we m doilig; ■■■Z$.®teMffll&%^b<A$ty , Q& > 

-r- , n • "l j. 4 _ T ___- X T j. J.I.: :„ AUJji^iliUJfc'Uj 

goirif t# *# <36nf$m lb irive^&tirii 
let us go out and buy his books- tirid g& 'W&ki it u ife* dH UbMt.- 
-m^iM^A*. H^pe^tihtot, itMtet&jrie^Mri : f%s; that'the, 
Original' study; -particularly wsi s- matfe po^iftle aftH W^|dvari£ea b^ ■; 
a J ' fiftrft ! Irbrii <>z£d Of &e foundation?: ' ' HbW *^ bth^ studied Of J 
colnpi&blfc riatiiite So f aj 4 as Value 1 is 5 d#ck<i?etf %6B ihad^ jsb'ssibia ! 
by feu^^om f O^da^bris r0maiiis ; td W#fcnv I d6 ri<$ tirictatarijl 
thiit iW wi&iesfc ill gtfnftti rBel&Bdr this ^lib^fefe; 7 ; , 

Dr. BpBBS. No, sir. ^ 

4 M£ Hays: ! wO&fl Eke to say On tMfr sb%%ihdt there undoubtedly 
hive* BeM^dMirig tO the tftiitiber 6£ foMttattdii^that we said there 
were in the opening of these hearings, there ha vel beeri literally tens 
of thousands of grants.. 
' I3k HbfiisV Yes, sir; 

MrJHAYS.' 1 jiist do riot think we ought to pick but thUsex #&rit i 
anfl c^ncehtf ette' on* eriefgies on that. Ijet 'tis ju&t Sort Of go' aI0rig J 
arid get, Ori with 7 fedrndthiiii el$e'. 

m Ho^fe. Ijani sOrry I dM hot mike- ffiat dle^r, perhaps^ But 
what I aril f eterMtig to are > grants whi&i'h^ve* hadSie most Mrierice ! 
ori the MBliei , Tdtfefenia^ theireS were th^«riQs 6f ^ntsl Thfe gen^ 
^ tnfblic i^% ; Of ifte findings* d% say- ^rtterberift- of thOsfe 
tffis#ridW IWI Mditeg^QC^ which ffie 1 g'eftetal public does hear ; 
ofWwM^thyA^ ^ 

JMEfc "BAWJ Bbcto¥, right there, are riot- the nridSrigs of all these' 
grafots TiuhHshled-prebaMy? 

Br'. Hd^s^Mafly' of theiri are, ;of cotir^. 

Mr. Hays. And if the public decides to look titer thi& ori6r, there 
is'ribtjmufeh' W&iiarido about it. We' might fe'a'yithatisa bad charketer- 
istieori the^rfbf *fi^ puBJic t6 b^ so curioiS§ dBOrit it, but there is 
nothirig ^^thi^ ^ con^sfttee 6to : do • about It. 

Mr'. W6&&sM ;Mri Ghairiiia^ riiaj^ I Merj'e'ct orie thihg^? Maybe 
I airi aritidipatiri^ Brit I think m. ^ HobBs wil^Bring Orif th&t irithe 
case of the Kinsey report, which he deems, I Be1i^6, a mista'keri piec 

of WOrk iri Ori« s^n§ey Was takeri u^ B^ ya*ioug elements in th& public 

Basis for * toaritt f of l^gislsttiori that Ottr % dil 

and even made the Basis 

and social practices Be changed. I think it has ehotirious importance 

aildiriipaetirithitddflne^iOto. . , 

Mr'. Ha*s. 1*.% me ^ay to ybti, Mr. WOrmser, that knowing what 
little I knOw abOufc legialatiOtt, from havirig served in twO different, 
legislative bodies, I would say that is a subject that most legislators 
win shy far awfcf fronl and I do ntit think you need to get toO much 
excited about it. 

49720^-54— pt. 1 9 

Mf , Go^ipin,, Jfsb &«ot a ; f $G£, r Dod*My if; $our know, that tb^ sale 
of bothpf the Ipnseyvolumes i&very di§ap]3pH$^?/ ; 

„ Dr T poBB^, I$p,not^ 

In relation to evaluation in the Kingey/ volume^ references to ^-, 
cial]^ approved patterns of sexual behavior are frcqiwptly referrecl' 
to as rationalization. That is, the socially approved patterns of sex- 
ual behavior throughout the Kinsey works are, referred to in terms 
of ridicule, as being mere rationalization, and justifications for types 
of behavior which l>y implication are not the best or even the most 
desirable. i 

Socially condemned forms of sexual behavior and criminal forms' 
of sexual behavior are usually in the Kinsey volumes referred- to as 
normal, or normal inthehuman animal. | | V 

The presentation of moral codes, codes .of sexual behirtf or, is suoK 
that they are contrasted with t what Kinsey calls, normal mammalian 
behavior, which could give the impression, 4 and it gave the impression 
to a number of reviewers, that things which conform to the socially 
approved codes of sexual conduct are rationalisations, not quite right, 
while things which deviate from it, such a$ lipmosexuality, are; nor-? 
mal, in a sense right. ' " r .v ' .,■ ' t 

Mr. Hats. I would like to get that a little straighler. As I sav,I 
am working at a disadvantage never having read ti^ese yplumes,, ToiX; 
are saying now that Kinsey says homosexuality is normal? .' 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. " ;, "C : i\-;\:^ ",.,..^ ^' V. 

The Chairman. Possibly I should reserve tlu^-^6]^^aiipn-;w;^h' 
representatives of the foundations concerned are, befpret^e. committee, 
but what disturbs me, professor, is why a f oundation /^^|g;f^d§'^., 
made available by the people and the Government 4^16^^$^^^ J',', 
or at least some 90 percent of the (funds are ma4$ .P^ible/i^ 
people foregping the taxes which tb»ey otherwfee wpul^^eceive^ which, 
you and I make up, why a foundation should be ,nia^g grants f or a , 
study of this nature^ It may have sufficient "scien^fic ^alue to^ justify 
it, but it certainly is a project that I, as Mr, Says i|impaies ; tliat tfre, i 
Government itself would not undertake to ma^e ^e)fuRds available,, 
to sponsor the project. Then why should spine ageiicy w^pse] funds 
are made available by the Government f oregping r ^ie^ taxes in turn,, 
sponsor a project that has at least such a gre^-t, question and aura 
of mystery surrounding it ? ,^ 4 V/ ; 

Dr, OSpbbs, Sir, in respect to a grant for the first yplumeyX shoiijid; 
say there should ^ave, been a good deal of skeDtfcis^h> but I cai^ seej; 
where the members of the foundations, cpuldfbelT-r-c^tj.ot mistake me,, * 
Prof essor Kinsey is a very able man, he had a verjfigopci papkgroiaid ' 
in physical j science j ; in biology, specifically in taJ?P^oiny, and he F ]LSr 
an extremely : hard i wprker.i . ,■.:■ , ; -.-: w :■:.;: fO'i'v'v.-:' ; '"?' ,■,,"; .",'",-.', 

^ejCBEAiBMA^* I| you will permit an interjecjtio^j ^U I&ave Jiear^i 
about Prof essor Kinsey is very favorable. ■ ■<-/; -;. j ; = t ".."... , , !r 

X>r, Hobbs. vyes»sir. '.;' ': ■■' : ; ;; .u--.,, M; ,[ M <a , A .]: ! . i L-;Vi'':'".v j^ 

The Chairman. As a professor and ip ; |^s Jf ^e)^ Tj t#a^ihe ;is ff vec^ if 
capable. The question is whether he roamed be^ndil^sl]jSel.4 w|ien ^ke ' 
project? d himself into this, study under jthe; grafts, ■; mac[e -by ''#ie* r 
foundation; „.-,;,< ;. -' : .■■.•;! ' '■■■'■.''■.■.■ h^ovrl ,^iivv^ ■)• ' : : : '.-,^} 

Mr, Hafs. {What you are saying, Mr. iQhair^ %&,', 

expert on wasps. ; ; , r ; I : ^ 

Dr. Hobbs. A particular kind of wasp. „ , 

«.'-M&F.vM**fc- ; l Want to go back to this business. I f am frankly qttite 
disturbed afc^t this statement. I hate always been under the im? ? 
p^e^kai that holt^ekuality was a disease. Now you.say that Kiiisey 
maiesth^flat*statemelst^^ • ? 

Dr. Hobbs. In the context of the pmsentatidnihe refers to human* 
sexual normality in terms of the human animal,^ normal in other 
anthropoids. These- are all quotes. Wsiial mammalian fcehay^r, bio- 
logic normality. Perfectly natural and humanly inevitable. That lasts 
one, I, think— I am not positive abo^t 1 this— Specifically along. with 
the others related to homosexuality^. , •'■■'•;■ 

•Mrl'HAtfs. As I follow you now; yottare lifting- a gfloup of words-' 
and ^ust mentioikimg them off ^ and saying ^atthej wese used through 
the book. What I want to know is, 'did he or did he not say homo-; 
sexuality is nbrm&P? If he did; Tthiiik then we are on &af e groundt 
ingoing fttrther. If hedid^o^'letU^saty'thatl ' ^ 

Bri Hobbs. In the context of the presentation these terms were used* 
more than 100 times; I am not picking on r m otc^imhV^tm. Thtm 
terms were used over and over again in the fh^t vblume. : . ; ' 

Mr. HUm I am asking you" a simple^ question.- Did he or ^did he 
not-^you can answer by either yes'or^o^dM he or did: he noVsa^ 
homosexuality is normal behavio^ !>1 - ^ ;i ,* ..-•■., ;ii 

Dr. Hobbs. I Would have to get the. volume and the exact referenced 

Mr. HaysL I thought a moment igWthat you made the st^te^meht 
that he said that. At least yo\i left pe with that impression; ;; ; / ] _ " • ■ > 

Dr; Hobbs; Tf I said that it was a misinterpretation] - The implica- 
tion throughout the book in the 1 context, -6f ; nbrmal. m^mma^n 1 . b#^ 
havjo?, and so on, the implication: which i§ likely to be left in the* 
miriiis of most readers is the hpmosfex^altt^.and 1 Other ;f6rfns of sbdaliy 
condemned; forms of sexual behavior aret normal, ^rinal in^'thcF 
mammalian sense. -^■-■■.■\ »o ^'' ;; -'-' ; -v^ ! ^!-- ,;- !V .;\:" ( I 

Mr. Ha*s. In other words, you are sayiiig he , left' that implic^tton 
but he didnotsatsb flatly? V ;: "■ '^-^•■'■•■■•■s v -";>■> }b/-:;-; ^< <-n\ 

Dr. MHobbs. Tlie statement may be" ifttte book. I would not say 
dMiiiterythatitiSjOrisnot. f ^ .* - """ ] 

Mr, HAm; 1 think it is bad if he left the implication, but I think 
itisalotworiseif hesald so flatly. 
( Dr. Hobbs. 1 I agree with you; * ; ;1 

The ChaSemanv But the quotations which you have just read, pro- 
fessor, which are explanatiQns which he^ives in the book, certainly 
would agree the normality of !such behavior. 

Dr. Hobbs. Very definitely and repeatedly. 

Mrs. Piost. Dr. Hobbs, I under st66d that the purpose of the hear- 
ings of this committee was to investigate the donatibm and grants of 
tax-exempt foundations to un-Amerkfaii activities ior •subversive organ- 
ization. I was wouoidering wlmt bearing this Kinsey report has on this 
angle of our hearings. '-■ ' ! ^-- •■■'■.:■■■■ .>..\\ ■.:<■» v> -_' ' n :,-;'' rr r >- } '' l 

Dr; Hobbs; My understanding-Mit may be incoare^t-~was that there 
was an interest in whether these grants^ result in studies "and. publica- 
tions which in a significant way affect apolitical activity or military 
activity or -moral activity. -- : '■■ -'V vMi^-'- ?M ; n: I ,v-/. </:::!/.:■ 

Mr. Wokmsek. May I interject, if I may, Mr; Chairman, to suggest 
to Mrs; Pfost that Dr. Hobbs hardly is Sri a 'position to testify what the- 
investigation covers.; I think, the * committee ! itself would < have ■ to> '■■ 
determine that. 

! Mare. Pt!om\ I: caii realize- that^ but* we seem to have gotten *$ve,? to 
the Kansey report and have stayed dn it for quite some tintes. / 

Mr. HApes; Mr. Wbrniser, right there, you a»d Jhave- had humorous 
conversations and we always wind up agreeing- that thi* eoimnittee 
did not set out t»? investigate sex ■ - r 

•t Mrj WbitMSEKi; There is no question about that. ; ,- T -.:..., 

Mr. HAirdi We- are spending a lot of tinie on that So we got sex 
in the back door.; That is going to be good* headlines; 

Mr. Koch. Brnphasizeaby questions. 

Mr. Wormser. May I make this explanation^ Prof essor Hpblja has 
written a book in wMfeh he has discussed what h$ called "seiemtism." 
I still would like him to explain that word. The word relates to re- 
search and the type of writing in the social sciences whiehvis financed 
widely by foundations and it has certain, according to Dr. Hobbs and 
his book, derogatory effects on our society. It seems to me that is a 
proper subject for investigation. The Kinsey report is one of the 
examples of a .piece in one sense anyway, a mistaken investigation 
which has had derogatory effects. 

Thei Chair^a:^ My feeling would be y Mrs. Flost, that the. ۩mmit- 
t^e does h^^e fuU authority to investigate, the grants which any of 
the foundations may have made to determine what the effect of these; 
grants may have been. However, I think your question is very appro- 
priate, ii^ indicating that we ought not to let ourselves get too far on 
thebyroad. ; /{<;; 

Me. G-oouwin^ Xi seems to me, Mr* Chairman* we ought to let the 
doctor go ahead and develop his testimony. So far as I am concerned, 
I will keep in the background any interest I have in this matter. i ; , 

The Chairma^ If it is agreeable with the comanittee, I r think it 
would, be in the interest of good procedure to permit JDfr. Hobbs to- 
proceed with the development of his thesis until we feel abused.. , 
, ; M%, ■ Hasts. .Jnst;bef ore he goes on, I am going to insist; that we clear 
up this remark of the associate counsel, which; I think -he" put it' 
in there deliberately to" indicate I have an undue interest in this 
matter. _ As you know, I told you in the beginning tbjtt we better 
leave Kansey eleaa? out of this hearing one way otf another, because I 
do not think this committee is competent to ruje an Itinse-y Or the 
subject that he studied. I do not want any members of the stall to 
be trying to put me in a bad light. As a mattet of faet, as far as 
that js concerned, I do not think any can, even if they try, but I am 
going to make it plain right here that I am not goiaatjg ft© sit idly by 
and let it happen. / 

While I am on the subject, the reeord migfce as- weE show that 
there is no minority staff, that the minority is sitting here alone. If 
we try to protect amybody that we think is b»ingfptlrjseGtit^d r weare 
still alone,,; because the staff and the majority ar© all of the' same 
opinion. I am trying to be openminded about the whole thing. 

Mr. GOobwisf. Mr. Chairman, I think the record will probably 
show that any buildup that has been given Mr. Kinsey this morning 
has been done by the committee. .',. . 

The Chairman. I think possibly that Professor Hobbs would have 
been very restrained insofar as I am able to observe from what he 
said so far, and I do not think the development by the committee 
applies to my one member of the committee ; it applies to all of us. 

Mr. WoRM^ilfr* £^airm*», may, I #ft.^ sometJamg to Mr, Hays. 
I tried to make clear to him in perso»fat a talk weuhad that insol^r 
m I personally am concerned as counsel* I mom thaa welcome; his 
4eisajaaa®fe)ji of witnessed j mix delighted te tow hi*n sxamine the#i 
as ffeely as be wishes. Jom mot srn the cjanjn&fcefej I m» only counsel ; 
butI^a#tkwtoupde^*nd«oiwsM'spQgitio^ = i ? 

The QnAmmm. You may proceed, Mr. 2G©ibb§,, : : 

J>r; Hgbbs. Thank yen, sir. Per haps this is aot in context. I 
don't know. But what I aw tryiuglfeo illustrate is the manner in 
which studies can influence important aspects of human kehaYior. I 
doo'fc meiaii to impjagn Professor Kinsiy's motives, nor the motives of 
the members of the foundations or anything of that type. I am 
merely saying that this can happen and this is. an illustration of 
where it does happen. = \ 

For an illustration, in connection with _ the question of hstero- 
sexuality compared with homosexuality, Kinsey inithe first v&^m© 
has this statement: 

It is ofiiy because society demands that there be a particular choice in tie 
matter (of heterosexuality or homosexuality) and ; does clot so often dictate 
qn^'^ Qhpic^ <tf f pod or ciotfctog. . : T . - 

He puts it in terms of it is just a custom which society demands. 

In the second volume it is stressed, for example, that we object to 
adult molester of children primarily because we have become con- 
ditioned against such adult molesters of children, and that the chil- 
dren who are molested become emotiopaHy upset, primarily beeauae 
of,.. the old-fashioned attitudes pf their parents about such practices, 
and the parents (the implication is) are the ones who do the real 
damage by making a fuss about it 'if a child is molested. Because 
the Molester, and here I quote from Einsey, "may have contributed 
favorably to their later soeiosexual development." That is a molester 
of children may have actually, Kinsey contends, hot only not harmed 
them, but may have contributed favorably to their later soeiosexual 
development. = 

Especially emphasized in the second volume, the volume on females, 
is the supposed beneficial effects of premarital sexual experiences. 
Such experiences, Kinsey states : 

provide am oppoittjnity for the females to leant to adjust emotionally to various 
■typep of males. , : ■=.•;;;-•:■■ ■■")' 

That is on page ?68 of the volume ori females. 

In addition, on page 327 he contends that premarital sexual expe- 
rience may well contribute to the effectiveness of one's other non- 
sexual social relationships, and that many f emales-^rthis is on page 
115— vwill thus learn how to respond to soeiosexual .contacts, , > ; 
, On page 328, that it should contribute to the development of, emo- 
tional capacities in a more effective way than if sexual experiences 
,are aspqired after marriage. 

The avoidance of premarital sexual experience |by females, accord" 
ing to Professor K ; nsey, may lead to inhibitions which damage the 
f <jarj^city to respond, so much 

years of marriage, ^if, indeed, they are ever dissipated." . Xhat 4 s 
from page 330. <.,, r . ,., , . , <, . .,.. ..,.,,,, ..: ■.._'-:< 

_ So (you get a continued emphasis on t^;desirafeil^ty of feft^ales 
^ejiga^in^ in premarital sexual behavior. Th botlr df ! these vtftuines 


• there is a perlisfeeht emphasis, ""ft- jieiteistenfc 4^ es ^' 0I1 i% ! * t ^ ^ e * t^^" 

"tibhal eodesjttiidthia^Jaws reflating 'to : se£uair%ehaviorr Processor 

Kiiisey may M fcbrrfcct or heinay be incorrect^ but when he gives the 

^ impression that the findings are scientific in the; same sense as the 

■"ftijdings jn* physical science* then the issiae becomes not a matter of 

whether he as a person is correct or incorrect/ but of the impression 

which is given to the public, which can be quite iinf ortunate. 

- As an illustration of this impression, there is a volume which came 
out this year called Sex Life of the American Woman and the Kinsey 
Report, which was edited by one Albert Ellis, and published in 1954. 
In this volume an attorney— shall I give his name; it is not particu- 
larly a- flattering reference? 

The Chairman. Unless there is something to be accomplished by 
it, I see no purpose to it. 

- Dr. Hobbs. I will omit these names, but if you want them I can 
supply them. An attorney writing in this volume says this: 

It may sound strange to say that the most encouraging note about the new 
Kinsey report is its Indication that more and more women are beginning to 
.•commit more and more sex crimes. 

People get to think that this is a good thing if iviomen commit more 
and more sex crimes. 

Then from the same volume here are a series of statements from a 
prominent clergyman, and again I would prefer not to identify him, 
but can if you wish. He comes very, very close to comparing the 
Kinsey findings and the Kinsey study with religion. 

Looking for truths, mathematical, historical, artistic, sesual, any and every 
kind of truth is a form of religious devotion. This questioning of the world is 
only one kind of worship, of course, but it is one to which we are enjoined. It 
is a devotional life involving laboratories and libraries, interviews, and the IBM. 

This is by a clergyman, and it comes to be almost a religion or 
substitute for religion. 
He says: 

These (referring to Kinsey 's findings) results are the facts with which the 
moralist will have to work and build. 

Do you want the page numbers on these citations, if anybody wants 
to check them? . 

The CHAiRMANi It would not hurt to give the page numbers. 

Mr. Hobbs. The first reference was on page 79, and the second one 
on page 80. The reference by the attorney was on page 183. 

Another one, also, by the clergyman : 

Yet we cannot go back to the legalistic morality which has prevailed so long. 
That has really outlived its usefulness if the Kinsey books are right 

Here you get a man who is undoubtedly sincere^ but unfortunately 
like many of us when we are in areas where we are not expert, quite 
£ullible.< Assuming this is published and labeled "science," therefore 
it must be right ; even clergymen have to go along with it and change 
concepts of morality. 

That legalistic cpnformism has outlived its usefulness by about 2,000 years, 
if the New Testament is right. It is an emeritus ethic, due at least for honorable 
retirement. ''-'' ''.'/, .'' ■ 

That is on pages 92 ai^d 93. 

Just prior 4 to the publication of the first Kinsey volume, the one 
oh males, there was an article in Harper's magazme presenting the 


type of cpiielusion which Kinsey was going to bring out, written by 
one Albert Beutsch. He described the general type of Kinsey's con- 
clusions, that they were shocking, that they would change the laws, 
'that they would change attitudes toward morality, and so on, and 
he had this statement in there, which I think is particularly pertinent 
to this inquiry: 

So startling are its revelations, so contrary to what civilized man has been 
taught for generations, that they .would be unbelievable but for the impressive 
■ weight of the scientific agencies backing the survey. • 

That is the unfortunate thing that you have involved here. I do 
not mean that the foundations meant it to be that way. I do not mean 
even that Professor Kinsey meant it to be that way. But unfortu- 
nately the public does get that impression— that this is something that 
is final and infallible, which you cannot and should not question. I 
think that is extremely unfortunate. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, would you take the time to give quickly 
1 or 2 illustrations, starting at page 99 of your book, of reactions to 
the first Kinsey report? I think some of them are particularly im- 
portant. There are 1 or 2 which resulted in advocacy of legislation 
to change sex laws. There is one from the Scientific Monthly on page 
99. There is another from Professor Mclver, and a third one from 
E. L. Dickinson. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. 

The Scientific Monthly is an impressive and deserved title for a sound and 
scholarly magazine. In the December 1948 issue a review of the Kinsey report 
appeared in this magazine. This review was written by a respected psycholo- 
gist who did state some of the limitations inherent in the Kinsey sample, but 
then went on to minimize these limitations. He described the report as an out- 
standing achievement, which used basically sound methods, which led to trust- 
worthy results. Not content to stop with description and assessment of the 
method, the reviewer did precisely what the Kinsey report seems designed to 
lead people to do, stating that it recorded "tremendous implications for scien- 
tists, legislators, physicians, and public officers." He contended that the report 
"shows clearly that our current laws do not comply with the biologic facts of 
normal sexual behavior." 

In other words, the implication is that the laws should be changed 
to conform with biology. If you have a biological urge, the law 
should permit you to express that biological urge as it is demanding 
on you. 

This review described the final result as "one of the most outstanding 
contributions of social and biological science to the welfare of 

Then in another type of review, this was entitled, "About the Kinsey 
Report," edited by Donald Porter Geddes and Enid Curie. Eleven 
experts contribute observations about the Kinsey report. These ex- 
perts, and some of them of great renown, included psychiatry, pro- 
fessor of sociology, anthropology, law, psychology, economics, and 
anatomy. They react in similar fashion. Some of them simply do 
not know enough about scientific method and statistics to evaluate 
Kinsey's report, and these accepted without qualifications. Others 
have a suspicion that it is unscientific, but say in effect that it doesn't 
matter, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a 
basis for reform of sexual behavior and of laws which deal with 
violations of sexual mores. 


Mr, Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, I dp not think you need to takq the time 
to do more. There are other similar citations in your Sbook at pages 
99 to, I believe, 102. I think you might here go to another subject. 

Dr. Hobbs. The point I wanted to make here is that this is the type 
of thing which can, and, I think you will agree, does in some measure 
at least influence an important aspect of human beha.vjor. It is 
something that we should be extremely careful about, careful to a 
degree which was not indicated in the publicizing of books such as 
the .Kinsey report. I don't mean to put' any onus on Professor Kinsey. 
He certainly worked hard, and sincerely, at it, and has an impressive 
collection of data. But the end result is quit£ unfortunate. 

The second reference I would like to make is to a/book^ written by 
Stuart Chase, called. The proper Study of Mankind published in 
1948 by Harpers. Here is the publisher's blurb on it, which states 
under a title, "How This Book Came To Be Written," and I quote from 
the publisher's blurb : 

The story of the origin and development of the proper study of mankind high- 
light its importance and suggests its quality. All his life Stuart Chase ha» 
been keenly interested in social problems as his many highly successful books 
bear witness. His growing anxiety about the state of the world and the dilem- 
mas of the atomic age was challenged some 3 years ago when he was asked by 
Donald Young of the Social Science Research Council and Charles Dollard of 
the Carnegie Corp. to undertake the preparation of a study which would — 

and this is in quotes — 

"run a kind of chain and compass line across the whole front of the sciences 
devoted to human relations." 

Then further on it says : 

It (the book) was planned and developed in consultation with dozens of social 
scientists in all parts of the country, and Messrs. Young and Dollard followed 
the project step by step to its completion. 

So that here is an illustration of a book which was not only the 
result of a grant, but which directly involved members of the founda- 
tions, and which had their specific endorsement, 

Mr. Hats. Dr. Hobbs, I have a couple of questions. I do not 
know how long you are going to be here, and I think it is important 
that we get them in. I do not know that this is any better place than- 
perhaps later on or even earlier. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. In view of the fact that there must be literally thousands- 
of professors all over the country, I am interested in how you came 
to be here today. Did you approach the staff or did the staff ap- 
proach you, or just how was the contact made ? 

Dr. Hobbs. As I remember the sequence, I believe it was Mr. Norman 
Dodd who wrote to me saying that he had read my book and was very 
much interested in it, and that he was going to or had ordered copies- 
for the research group and then later on he wrote to me saying he 
would be in Philadelphia, and would I meet him and have dinner 
with him. I did. I believe it was at that time he asked or gave me 
a general outline of the type of thing that the committee was trying- 
to do and asked me if I would care to contribute to it. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, then, the staff approached you. You 
did not write in asking to testify ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, no. 

Mr. Hats. Have you ever worked on a foundation project ? 

Dr. Hobbs: I was with the Princeton office of population research in 
the early part of the war before I Went into the service. I dp j hot 
know franldy whether that was a foundation. It was working under 
tjie Department of State. I don't know whether grants werte in- 
volved or not. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, you were never directly involved in one 
where you got a grant ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I have received grants, yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. You have received grants? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. At the end of the war, the Social Science Re- 
search Council had what they call demobilisation awards, which were 
for the purpose of enabling people who had been in the service to 
help them to get back into the swing of things, and in a sense at 
least sort of make up for lost time. Donald Young approached me 
and said in effect, "Why don't you try for one of these awards," 
and I did. The grant Was the demobilization award for the summer 
of 1946 and the summer of 1947. It was in the amount of $1,000 for 
each of those summers so I could work on a book. 

Mr. Hats. What foundation was that from? 

Dr. Hobbs. The Social Science Research Council. 

Mr. Hats. Have you ever applied to any of these foundations for 
a grant that has been turned down? 

Dr. Hobbs. No. 

Mr. Hats. You have never been turned down ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. 

Mr. Hats. I want you to get the impression, and I hope you will, 
that any questions I may ask you are not unfriendly. 

Dr. Hobbs. Surely. 

Mr. Hats. I am just interested in some of the background here. 
Of course, I am sure you realize by this time that your appearing this 
morning and the testimony that you have given so far will get your 
name in a lot of papers and places where it has probably never been 

Dr. Hobbs. I might say that my name has been in a lot of papers 

Mr. Hats. I am sure it has. 

Dr. Hobbs. Frankly, it does not matter too much. 

Mr. Hats. It is going to be in all of them from this testimony 
today; let me put it that way. That fact would not have influenced 
you in your choice of this particular book to discuss ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No. Frankly, I am interested in the type of studies 
I make in teaching. To put it frankly, this is obviously an emo- 
tional strain and so on, and I am taking time off from my Work. 

Mr. Hats. I do not know whether you observed it or not, but I 
think this is interesting, and I think it is interesting to you. The last 
book you mentioned, what was the name of that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. If you want to, we will keep the title down. 

Mr. Hats. No, I want the title of it. 

Dr. Hobbs. It is "Social Problems in Scientism." 

Mr. Hats. Not your book. Did you not just mention a book? 

Dr. Hobbs. Stuart Chase, "The Proper Study of Mankind." 

Mr. Hats. Did you observe that did not create much of a ripple 
among the reporters. when you mentioned that book, but on the Kin- 
sey book they all made notes. 


Dr. Hobbs. I am sorry. We have to face it, sex is interesting— I 
am not sorry that it is that way ; it is a fact. 

Mr. Hats. I do not think you need to commit yourself about 
whether you are sorry or not. I certainly dM not npan to n^ik©: teri$ 
inference. I just want to point out that this is the tm&g that is going 
to get the news. What I am getting at is, that did not influence you 
to use that particular one for an illustration? 

Dr. Hobbs. No. You see ; I had written two critical analyses of the 
Kinsey books for the American Journal of Psychiatry, and they did, 
when they were issued, get a lot of publicity, and so on. So that is 
the context in which they are significant, I think. 

Mr. Hats. If what you say about the Kinsey Report is true, and I 
certainly have no reason to doubt your statements, I think it is unfor- 
tunate if we have encouraged the sale of it any. But since your book 
is critical of it, maybe you ought to mention the title of it again, and 
maybe we might encourage the sale of it a little. 

The Chairman. I have grave doubts whether what he has said 
about the Kinsey Report today would promote the sale of it very much. 

Mr. Hats. You would be surprised at the number of curious peo- 
ple that will want to go and read it. 

The Chairman. You may go ahead. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. One question on this Proper Study of Man- 
kind would be why was a man like Stuart Chase selected. Again 
I do not mean to impugn Mr. Chase, because he is an excellent writer. 
He is a very good popular writer. 

Mr. Hats. Right there now, I am interested. You say why was a 
man like Stuart Chase selected. Who is he? Give us a little back- 
ground about him. 

Dr. Hobbs. He has written numerous books which are listed on this 
blurb: The Tragedy of Waste; Your Money's Worth; Men and 
Machines; The Economy of Abundance] Rich Land, Poor Land; Idle 
Men, Idle Money; Where is the Money Coming From? I think 
that would still be up to date. 

Mr. Hats. If he wrote Where is the Money Coming From? he 
plagiarized former Congressman Rich. He had a copyright on that. 

Dr. Hobbs. There is another one more recent than this which I 
reviewed for one of the journals published after the war, "For This 
We Fought," and the usual line that we were fighting for economic 

fains, we were fighting for better housing and things like that. I 
ad just come out of the service. I had not met anyone who was 
fighting for a better house or anything like that. So I wondered 
why a man like Stuart Chase, who has in his work definitely indi- 
cated his leanings toward collectivism and social planning and that 
sort of thing, why he was chosen. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, you are saying he is a sort of leftwinger ; 
is that it ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, to answer that, may I cite from another book 
written by one of your colleagues, Congressman Shafer, this is the 
book called "The Turning of the Tides," written by Paul W. Shafer, 
Congressman Shafer, I understand, and one John Howland Snow, 
and there is a reference in there to Stuart Chase and several Stations 
from his writings : 

In 1921 the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was ready for the next organiza- 
tional step, and this was signalized by a change of name. The 16-year-old ISS in 
that year became the League for Industrial Democracy. 


The LID was a membership society Organized for the specific pur- 
pose of "education for a new social order based on production for use 
and not for profit." 

Under its new name, the original Intercollegiate Socialist Society 
continued under the joint direction of Harry W. Laidler and Norman 
Thomas. The league's first president was Robert Morse Lovett, a 
professor of literature at the University of Chicago, and an editor of 
the New Republic. Charles P. Steinmetz was a vice president, and 
Stuart Chase was treasurer. One of its lecturers was Paul R. Porter, 
later with the ECA in Greece. The field secretary was Paul Blanshard. 
In 1926 one of the directors was Louis Budenz — a man of whom you 
have heard. 

Mr. Hats. A sort of eminently respectable repentant Communist. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. A professional witness, too, isn't he? 

Dr. Hobbs. He has appeared testifying before committees. I have 
read some of the testimony. 

Mr. Hats. I do not know whether he is one, but my good friend, 
Martin Dies, was saying the other day that he had a string of Com- 
munists that he could depend on any time, but television ruined all 
of them. 

Dr. Hobbs. This book also refers to Stuart Chase, addressing the 
department of superintendents of the National Educational Asso- 
ciation, at its Atlantic City meeting on February 25, 1935, and said : 

If we have even a trace of liberalism in our natures, we must be prepared 
to see an increasing amount of collectivism, Government interference, centraliza- 
tion of economic control, social planning. Here again the relevant question 
is not how to get rid of Government interference, but how to apply it for the 
greatest good of the greatest number. 

The citation is from the National Education Association, April 25, 
pages 107, 110. 

In 1934 Stuart Chase declared that an abundance economy re- 
quires^ — 

the scrapping of outworn political boundaries and of constitutional checks and 
balances where the issues involved are technical. 

That also is from the National Education Association Journal of 
May 1934, page 147. 

Mr. Hats. Are you a member of the National Education Asso- 
ciation ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. The National Education Association is for ele- 
mentary and secondary school teachers primarily. College teachers 
ordinarily would not belong to it. One question here is why was Stuart 
Chase chosen when his leanings were definitely known and why not 
pick some other person, or if you do pick Chase, and a case could be 
made for picking him by virtue of his extremely good writing talent, if 
you do pick him, then you would have to be very careful that he did not 
slant the material too much in ways that you would know he is likely 
to. You have these two members of the foundation, Donald Young and 
Charles Dollard, who presumably would tend to modify or eliminate 
any leaning which you might tend to find in the book. That did not 

Here, sir, I will go back to the question you raised earlier about 
giving the reader the impression that the physical sciences and the 


soeral seierices ft^e Wry much fcfo& sanm • Hlera-is the type of thing you 

What had. the anthropologist, psychologist, sociologist to ten us afeout ! stich 
proMemg that wits in &ny way cdmparabWto what the pfey£ici»t and the medical 
rtfeti'h&d to tail us ahout thermodynamics and filterable viruses, laws *nd princi- 
ples and techniques which a man would rely on? So when it was suggested by 
Donald Young of the Social Science Research Council and Charles Dollard of 
bhp Carnegie Corp. that I run a kind of dhain-and-^ontpass lihe across the whole, 
front of the sciences devoted to human delations, I wa^ immediately: iate^ested 
in connection with the deep and fundamental quest for certainty Which had 
troubled me for aiany years. 

, My first conferences were with Young and Dollar d, who have followed the 
project step by step and given me invalu&ble help. Beforte accepting the assign- 
ment at all,, I consulted Raymond Fosdick, who has planned and encouraged 
many studies in M© application Of seieac& to human relations, and he Urged me 
to attempt it. 

Mr. Hats. Professor, to keep this thing clear, would yon identify 
Young and Dollard a little more? 

Dr. Hobbs. As identified. in the book and advertising-— 

Mr. Hats. What foundations are they with ? 

Dr. Hobbs. As stated, Donald Young of the Social Science "Research 
Council, and Charles Dollard of the Carnegie Corp. 

Mr. Hats. As I get it so far, is this Stuart Chase accused of being 
a Communist or anything? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, but his leanings. As I said, according to The Turn- 
ing of the Tides, he was a member of the League for Industrial Demo- 
cracy, which was Socialist, or at least quasi-Socialist. 

Mr. Hats. Is that on the Attorney General's list or anything? I 
never heard of it. 

Dr. Hobbs. I frankly do not know whether it is or not. I am not 
saying this as, a matter of subversion, but a matter of definite leaning 
which was indicated in the background. 

Mr. Hats. We cannot criticize a man for his leanings, can We? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. 

Mr. Hats. A fellow might lean the other way, and as far as I am 
concerned, he has a perfect right to lean that way. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir; but, if the leanings are known, the question 
arises : Should'the foundations lend their prestige and works to foster 
those leanings in the eyes of the public or at least the portion of the 
public which reads books of this kind ? 

Mr. Hats. Do you suppose that the intellectual outlook of the in- 
dividual foundation member might have anything to do with that? 

Dr. Hobbs. It readily could. 

Mr. Hats. If you were a member of a board of directors of a founda- 
tion and somebody came to you with a request for a grant to promul- 
gate the ideas of William McKinley, would you think that would be 
a worthy subject for a grant? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Why ? He is a fellow statesman of mine. 

Dr. Hobbs. William McKinley did not have the title of a social 

Mr. Hats. He had a lot of ideas on social science. 

Mr. Goodwin. He had a lot of ideas which are still pretty good, too. 

; Mr. Hats. I would not want to say that he did not have any ideas 

that were not pretty good. I think his philosophy of politics, and that 

of his manager, shall we say, to use a kind word, Mark Hanna, have 

r TlX-fiXEMPT FGtMDATTOltfS ffil 

become pretty outdated. Even Ms principle of campaigning would 
not stand up in 1954. The front porch was good then. I wish you 
could campaign that way now. It would be better maybe for the 

candidate. . „ .-,, 

Mr. Goodwin, You can stop this colloquy, Doctor, if you will go 

Mr. Hats. Right there, I do not want you to arrogate to yourself 
any right to stop me from making a speech here, Mr; Goodwin. 
Mr. Goodwin. All right, Doctor. 

Dr. Hobbs. Then he goes on to say, after having these conferences 
with Young and Dollard, and after they had requested that he do this; 
work, tnathe went to Washington to meet a gpoup of social scientists; 
who had been active in war work, who had influenced (and he cites; 
examples) , Comdr. Alexander Leighton talked of his experiences withi 
Japanese Americans in the Arizona desert, and his work in Japan. 
Others outlined their work in selecting "cloak and dagger men," for 
the OSS. In manpower analysis, economic controls for inflation, the 
selection of officers for the Army. Samuel Stauffer described how 
he felt the pulse of 10 million GI's. Actually I may interject Chase 
said 10 million. In the volume on the American soldier which he re- 
fers to here, it was a half million rather than 10 million. I repeat 
the quote, "how he felt the pulse of 10 million GI's,, via the Army 
studies of troop attitudes and opinion which he largely engineered." 

Then he goes on to say that "I am grateful to J. Frederick Dew- 
hurst^ John Dollard, John Gardner, Pendleton Herring, Ralph Lin- 
ton, H. A. Murray, Talcbtt Parsons, Don K. Price, and Fatil Webbink 
for a reading of the manuscript, but I am, of course, responsible f or 
the final draft." 

This book, Chase says, is an attempt to explore the possibilities of 
applying the scientific method which has proved so successful in prob^- 
lems of matter and energy to problems of human relations. The 
methods in use by many statesmen today— — 

Mr. Hats. Dr. Hobbs, would you mind just holding up there a 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mrs. Pfost. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you a question. Since 
we are this morning investigating authors and the effect that their pub- 
lications have upon the public in general and it has been alleged that 
TV and radio have also been used lor those purposes to a great extent, 
especially by such foundations as Facts Forum that is backed, it is 
alleged, by Mr. Hunt, down in Texas, I was wondering whether 
or not if such allegations are true, that we intend in these hearings to 1 
investigate those foundations also ? 

The Chairman. The preliminary study has been made of a great 
number of foundations to determine the general character of their 
operations and a considerable number of them will be called, and' 
there is no indisposition on the part of the staff, so far as I know, 
for the chairman to have the representative of the Hunt Foundation 
appear before the committee. As a matter of fact, I had a telegram 
from the man who handles the Facts Forum programs stating that 
they would like to appear. 

Mr. Hats. In that connection, we discussed yesterday, Mr. Worm- 
ser, about getting a series of their scripts of their radio program, 
Mr. Koch. Yes, we are going to get them for you. 


Mrs. Pfost. I had not been brought up to date on this. 

Mr. Hats. That was late yesterday afternoon, and I did not know 
whether the staff had done anything at all. I want to make it clear 
as long as they bring in people on their television show and make it 
perfectly clear this is John Doe and Richard Roe or somebody else 
and that what he says is his opinion, that is one thing ; I have no ob- 
jection to that. 

There) are a lot of programs that do that, and a lot of people that 
think they are all right, and some they think are not. That is Amer- 
ica. The program I am interested in is where they purport to give 
both side of the thing themselves. One man says I will give you the 
pros and cons. The radio program is what I am particularly inter- 
ested in, and those are the scripts I want to get hold of . 

Mr. Wormser. You want to see the scripts before we bring them on. 

Mr. Hays. Definitely. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock 
this afternoon in this same room. 

(Thereupon at 11 : 55 a. m.,- a recess was taken until 2 p. m., the 
same day*) 


The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Professor Hobbs, you may proceed. 


The Chairman. The oath that was administered earlier is con- 

Dr. Hobbs. I should like to go back and complete a quotation which 
I started this morning. Another quotation which I am quoting to 

The Chairman. Professor, will you please keep in mind that we do 
not have the amplifiers this afternoon? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

This is another quotation which is designed to show the attempt to 
identify social science as being identical or at least very similar to 
physical science. I quote from Stuart Chase again : 

This book is an attempt to explore the possibility of applying the scientific 
method which has proved so successful In problems of matter and energy to the 
problems of human relations. The methods in use by many leaders and states- 
men today leave something to be desired. Are there any more dependable ways 
to promote well-being and survival? 

The implication there is that through this scientific method you can 
supplant or at least add to the methods used by statesmen. 
Another quotation to the same effect : 

Social science might be defined on a high level as the application of the scien- 
tific method to the study of human relations. What do we know about those 
relations that is dependable? The "wisdom of the ages" obviously is not good 
enough as the state of the postwar world bears eloquent witness. 

Another one to the same effect : 

The scientific method does not tell us how things ought to behave but how they 
do behave. Clearly, there is no reason why the method should not be applied to 
the behavior of men as well as to the behavior of electrons. 


. AH through this, if I may interject, giving the reader the impression 
tliat these two methods are the same. The quotation continues : 

; There are social experiments and physical experiments, and the scientific 
method can be used most advantageously in both, 

I would like to interject again, there are social experiments and 
there are physical experiments, but I would like to point out in the 
physical experiments you are dealing with electrons and things of 
that type. With the social experiments you are dealing with human 
beings and it makes quite a different situation. 

On the level we are discussing, there is no difference between social science 
and natural science. On this level, we define social science once more as the use 
of the scientific method to solve the questions of human relations. Science— 

and the word "science" is in quotes — 

goes with the method, not with the subject matter. 

. I wanted to establish that in Mr. Chase's book, which was sponsored 
and in which he was assisted by members of the foundations, the 
definite implication was made repeatedly to give the readers the 
impression that there was no substantial difference between social 
science and natural science. As for the ideas in this book, I would say 
further that there is not a balanced presentation of ideas. 

There is, for example, stress on cultural determinism. Cultural 
determinism is the notion which is fostered in much of social science 
that what you do, what you are, what you believe, is determined by the 
culture. The implication of that is that man is essentially a puppet of 
the culture. A further implication would be since he is a puppet he is 
to be given neither blame nor credit for what he does. 

I cite these things to indicate how these ideas can spread out and 
have very significant implications. 

Mr. Chase stresses the cultural concept throughout the book. I will 
just cite 1 or 2 instances of this : 

Finally, the culture concept gives us hope that many of our problems can be 
solved. ■-■■: Jif People are bad by virtue of their "blood," or their genes or their 
innate characters, there would not be much we could do about it, but if people 
are basically all right, and the problem lies primarily in an adjustment of culture 
patterns, or to culture patterns, perhaps a great deal can be done about it. 

That is, you get the idea that by manipulating society, you can 
change not only the society, but change the people within the society. 
This is the concept of Cultural determinism. It has been fostered 

Srimarily by a number of cultural anthropologists. The most in- 
. uential book in this area is Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, do you think there is no validity whatsoever in 
that theory ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, it is not a matter of there being no validity what- 
soever. It is a matter of a theory of this type being presented to the 
public with the weight of the foundations behind it, as though it were 
the scientifically proved fact. In that context, it is not correct. 

Mr. Hays. But I am not so sure that anyone reading those para- 
graphs that you have read would get that implication. I don't think 
that I would if I were directed into it. I mean, let's use a more simple 
example : Say a couple with an infant were in the jungles of Africa, 
somewhere, and something happened and the father and mother were 
killed, and this child was brought up by an uncivilized tribe. It 


would certainly react the same way the- uncivilized tribe would, in 
general, wouldn't it? I mean, it wouldn't react as a member of our 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, we have had those examples in social-science text- 
books for many, many years. Children purportedly— and these are 
offered, too, as scientific evidence — purportedly raised by wolves, pur- 
portedly raised by swine, and you may remember the Gazelle Boy. 

Mr. Hats. Let's not change my example. 

Dr. Hobbs. Would the culture affect him 3 

Mr. Hays. What was that? 

Dr. Hobbs. Is the question, "Does/the culture affect you?" 

The answer is obviously, "Yes." The question is nqt, "Does the:cul- 
ture affect you?" however, the question is, "Does the culture* determine 
without you having any control over that "determination; your behav- 
ior, your attitudes, your ideals, your- sentiments, your- beliefs ?,"• It, is 
the difference, sir, between the culture affecting you, which it certainly 
does, that is obvious, and the question: "Does culture determine your 

Mr. Hays. In other words, we are talking about a degree. 

Dr. Hobbs. A matter of degree ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I don't know whether we can ever determine any- 
thing much there or not. As you said earlier, you might argue until 
doomsday about the degree of it. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. But this is cultural determinism. The con- 
text of the Chase book is cultural determinism, not cultural influence. 

The Chairman. However, from the list of books which you read, 
which have been sponsored by foundations and some members, of the 
foundation staffs had collaborated on the books, I rather gathered the 
impression that possibly the preponderance of the books. Which had 
been sponsored and curried by the foundations, were promulgating the 
theory along the lines that you have advanced here. 

Dr. Hobbs. The ones which have been most highly publicized and 
pushed stronger than the others. 

Now and again, you will find publications of the foundations on the 
other side. B^ut they are ones that are few— hot necessarily few, but 
so far as the public is concerned they do not com© in contact with those. 

Mr. Hays. Going back to the chairman's statement, he said that of 
all the books whose titles you have read-ras I followed you very 
intently, you have, just discussed two books ; is that, correct ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. I have taken up two. volumes of Kinsey and 
this Chase book. 

Mr. Hays. Actually 2, volumes I and II; of Kinsey, and 1 by 
another author. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. And all two of them do what the chairman said. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. These ones that I have taken up, yes, sir-. 

I may have misunderstood your question. 

The Chairman. I was thinking you had referred to another,, that 
you made a summary statement in the very beginning and referred to 
some other books. 

Dr. Hobbs. I will, yes, sir, refer to another book which was actually 
four volumes. 

The Chairman. Very well. You may proceed. '.',,... 


Di\ Hobbs; This quotation continues : 

Theoretically, a society could be completely made over in something like 15 
years, the time it takes to inculcate anew culture into a rising crop of youngs 

If I may interject again, you see it is stronger, merely, than cuK 
tural influence. It is the idea that you can take over society by chang- 
ing the culture, change the entire society and the people in it. 

Mr, Hays. Don't you think you can do that to a significant extents 

Dr. Hobbs. George Orwell in a book called 1984 described how it, 
could be done. 

Mr. Hats. Let's not talk about anything theoretical that he says 
could be dpne. Let's take the period from 1933 to 1945, we will say, 
That is only 12 years. A fellow by the name of Hitler pretty signifU 
cantly changed; the whole German concept of civilization, did he not, 
or did he ? 

Dr. Hobbs. It definitely was in that direction. But I would say 
a more nearly apt analogy even than the Hitler one would' be the Rus- 
sian one, where they have deliberately, apparently, used these tech- 
niques, these same techniques to change the minds, to brainwash^ 
create the ideas and sentiments in their people. 

Mr. Hays. I agree with you about the Russian one. 

Dr.' Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. The reason I used Hitler was because he did a job in a 
lesser amount of time, even, than the Russians did. Prior to 1933 
he was considered to be more or less a clown and a boob, and so on, 
whoever you happened to be talking to you heard, "He isn't going to 
amount to anything." And certainly by legal means, of course, legal 
German means, he became the head of the state. And almost overnight 
you had the Hitler Youth and all; of those, and you had a militant con- 
cept built up there thajt Germany; was to rale the world,. 'and, you 
had all of these youngsters brainwashed and believing it as the Rus- 
sians are doing with theirs. - 

Dr* Hobbs i It definitely was in that direction. But I would' Say 
that the Russians, and now they passed it oh to the Chinese, have de- 
veloped these tchniques to amuQh more effective, level. It, again, 
is a matter of degree, but I think they developed themto a very highly 
effective level. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I wouldn't want to argue that point with you, I 
don*t know whether their techniques are more effective than Hitler's 
or not; To me ? as far as I am personally concerned, and this predates 
this investigation by a good many years— as a matter of fact ; I was 
a little bit unpopular back in the early 1940 T s, when I said that 
to me there was no difference between Stalin and Hitler and their 
philosophies except the difference, perhaps, in title. One of them 
called it National Socialism and the other called it; communism. 
But their aims and ultimate objectives and ultimate conclusions were 
about identical. I mean, they did about the same things to the 
people who lived under them and to the people they conquered. 

Dr. Hobbs. Personally, I feel that the Communists have more, 
effective techniques. The techniques are along these social science . 
lines, so called. 

Mr. Hays. They have had a longer time to develop them. 

Dr. Hobbs. They have done within their context pretty well. 

49720—54 — pt.l 10 


The Chairman. But when you see a pattern or what appears to be 
a pattern developing, to develop the people along the same lines that 
gave this result in Russia, not only Russia and Germany, but a number 
of other countries can be cited, also, it gives cause for concern. I 
assume that is the basis of the concern which you are expressing- 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir ; exactly. 

The Chairman. Of what you fear is going on as a result of your 
observations that you have made. 

Dr. Hobbs. It is definitely along those lines ; yes, sir, 

Mr. Hats. Are you connecting this book, then, definitely with the 
Communist concept of brainwashing and saying that is happening 

Dr. Hobbs. In some of these techniques, particularly the psycho- 
analytic technique, there are disturbing similarities in the approach, 
which if you read for example a book by Edward Hunter, Brain- 
washing in Red China, you find a series of disturbing similarities 
between the situation — not the situation as it exists now — but the 
direction we seem to be going in. 

Mr. Hats. Are you disturbed at all by the brainwashing that Secre- 
tary Stevens got for 14 days, and do you see any similarity to this 

Dr. Hobbs. I would say there is certainly a difference in the tech- 
nique and the finesse. 

Mr. Hats. I will go along with the finesse. But I can't say that I 
see much difference in the technique. 

Dr. Hobbs (reading) : 

But such a theory assumes that parents, nurses, teachers, have all been reedu- 
cated themselves, ready for the inculcating task which, as Euclid used to say, 
is absurd. But it helps, I think, to know that the trouble does not all come 
from an erring and variant human nature; it comes mostly from culture 
patterns, built into the plastic human nervous system. 

He goes on with the heading : 

I*repare now for a surprising universal. Individual talent is too, sporadic and 
unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization of society. 
Social systems which endure are built on the average person who can be trained 
to occupy any position adequately if not brilliantly. 

All of this, of course, goes back to Pavlov's dog, which he condi- 
tioned and then described his theory of conditioned reflexes. Then 
it leads into John B. Watson's theories of behaviorism, which were 
popular in the 1920's, which lead mothers to raise their children on a 
stopwatch schedule, afraid to pick their babies up if they cried. This 
was the science of that time. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, right there I want to agree with you about that. 
I remember that era pretty well. And I suppose that had Congress 
been so unoccupied at that time that it did not have anything better 
to do, it could have investigated that thing in the 1920's, but we sort 
of outgrew it, didn't we ? I mean, we got over it. I mean, I lived 
througn it and you lived through it, I guess. I didn't mean that to 
be funny. I am assuming you are old enough to have lived through it. 

Dr. Hobbs. Sure. 

The Chairman. May I interject? 

Mr. Hats. Surely, go ahead. 

The Chairman. It isn't the mere fact that this occurs, if it does 
occur, that disturbs hie, but it is the fact that the foundations, and 

there are some 6 to 7,000 of them in the United States, with a good many 
trillions of dollars, 90 percent of the income of which is there because 
the Government, tlae people who pay the taxes, have foregone taxes 
•on that income. That is, in effect, Government money. And it isn't 
the fact that a large percentage of the income of these foundations 
might be used to promote a certain ideology or certain line of culture 
•or certain line of thinking which leads to the result which you have 
•discussed in your exchange with Congressman Hays, but if any con- 
siderable amount of the funds of the foundations accumulated as a 
result of the sacrifices of the people should be used to that end, that, 
to me, is disturbing. As I understand it, that is one of the purposes 
of the committee, to find out whether that is being done, and the extent 
to which it is being done. 

To my mind it is a very, very serious question. At the rate which 
the foundations have multiplied in the last few years as a result of our 
tax, not only our tax structure but the size of our tax levies, it is only 
reasonable to assume, looking only a very short way into the future, 
that a very substantial part of the wealth of the United States is going 
to be found in these tax-exempt foundations. Therefore, the public 
lias an increasingly great interest, not only in the mere establishment 
of the taxation, but more importantly in its responsibility to see that 
the money from the foundations is not used for a purpose that is vio- 
lative of the principles of government in which we believe and in 
which the Gover nment itself devotes its interests in maintaining. 

That isn't a question, it is just more or less expatiating, I presume, 
giving the basis for my interest and concern in this question. 

Mr. Hats. Is that the end of your statement ? 

The Chairman. That is the end for the time being. You may pro- 
ceed if there are no other comments. 

Mr. Hats. Let me say this, that of course the publie has a right 
to know what is being done with this tax-exempt money, but it seems 
to me^to use an old saying that isextant in my section of the country, 
that maybe we should not try to make a!mountaia out,pf a moBhifi. 

As loFiBcall Mr. I>bdd3s/ testimony, and I find the exact 
quotation in a hurry so I hesitate to use a figure, but I think he said 
something like 80 percent^-or at least in excess of that — of these 
foundations had done grand work and that 90 percent of them had 
devoted practically all of their resources to cancer research and to 
various things like that. 

If you will permit me to digress here, one of the people in the world 
that I have never been very fond of is Mr. Bevan, the former Health 
Minister of Great Britain; but I never have forgotten a thing that he 
said to a meniber of a congressional committee who. w,as querying him 
in London one time. I nappened to be there not as a member of 
the committee but as a guest. 

They were talking about the British health scheme, or he was, and 
this member from the Midwest said, "Well, Mr. Minister, are the 
British people thoroughly satisfied with this health scheme?" and 
Mr. Bevan very quickly replied, "Until such time as medical science 
is able to confer immortality upon mankind, they will never be satis- 
fled with any health plan." 

That illustrates what I am driving at. Until such time as human 
beings become perfect, if we accept the doctor's premise that this par- 
ticular book is bad and money should never have been granted, that is 

144 ; *XX366iSff* id^Mr'cftJs 

his opinion, and' maybe that of nialiy otiters. If ft is'a mistake, just say 
it is a mistake. You cannot expect these foundations not to make any 
mistakes^ and you cannot expect them to channel all of their funds 
into projects which would be approved, shall we say, by the Chicago 
Tribune or somebody who believes along that line. There are liable to 
be differences about it. 

Mrs. Pfost. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Hobbs what he 
thinks the percentage of money coming from foundations that is going 
into the type of books that you are speaking about, in comparison to 
the other extreme. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would not know. 

Mrs. Pfost. You have no idea ? 

•Dr. Hobbs. No. 

Mrs. Pfost; In other words, you are simply basing your testimony 
entirely upon two or three books that have been furthered, that the 
research has been paid for, by the foundations, and you are centering 
your testimony entirely upon that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. But it is more, I think more important than that, 
in that these are the books, and these types of books are the ones which 
reach a much wider audience than the vast majority of works spon- 
sored and published by the foundations, that these are in a sense the 
crucial ones, and these^ with few, if any exceptions, these crucial 
ones, are all in the same general direction. 

So it is not a matter or counting the number of publications, nor is 
it even a matter of finding the percentage of money spent on one or 
the other. The issue, as I am trying to frame it here, is in what areas 
is the public most widely and significantly influenced by foundation- 
supported work in the social sciences? 

Mr. Hays. I was just going to ask you in view of the last state- 
ment, is there some reason why this type of books get wider circula- 

Dr. Hobbs.' Well, to answer in terms of the Kinsey report, there 
is an obvious reason. Sex is interesting. The proper study of man- 
kind, Stuart Chase's book-^your question would be : "Why would this 
get more publicity and more circulation than most other studies?" 

Well, Stuart Chase is an excellent writer and it was highly publi- 
cized as being backed by the foundations and so on. It was put in 
the area of a trade book rather than of a specific piece of research. 

Mr. Hays. What is the title of your volume % 

Dr. Hobbs. Social Problems and Scientism. 

Mr. Hat&. Social Problems and Scientism ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays Now, suppose the average man walks into a bookstore, and' 
I guess not many of them do any more since television, not as many 
perhaps as we would like to have, and he sees two books on the shelves, 
one of them is Social Problems and Scientism and the other is Sexual 
Behavior of the Human Male, and he happens to pick up the latter- 
one. Do you attach any special significance to that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I would say it would be most unusual if he would make- 
the other choice. 

Mr. Hays. I think that is a good answer. I think you and I are 
in perfect agreement. 

In other words, if what you wanted to do primarily in your book-^-- 
and I am not sure it wasn't, I am trying not to put you in a bad light— 


If what you primarily wanted to do was to sell your book, you would 
have left that very forbidding Word "gciehtism" off the ead of it and 
found some other title^ would you not? 

Dr. Hobbs. If I wanted .to pbfiularize it ? 

Mi*. Hats. Yes. 

Dr. Hobbs. Of course I would have given it a popular title, some- 
thing that sounded good. . • 

Mr. Hats. And that might have more to do with reaching a wider 
audieftee than any oth«r one thing, than the contents of it evfcr would ; 
wouldn't it? 

Dr. Hobbs. Of course, on some books the title has an appreciable 
influence on the sales, I would guess. 

Mr. Hay&. I wouldn't say I would approve of that, but I would 
think from what little knowledge I have of the book-selling business it 
is that they do deliberately set out to get eyecatching titles to sell the 

Dr. Hobbs. I would think so. 

Mr. Hays. And if the people are influenced by that and they don't 
like the book, well they have made a bad investment. 

The Chairman. I won't want to take additional time, but in regard 
to the mountain and the molehill, we can do something about the 
molehills, but sometimes it becomes very difficult to do anything 
about the mountain. The illustration that you earlier gave, in Ger- 
many it was the molehill, Was disregarded. 

Mr. Hays. I don't agree with that at all. I say it was a mountain. 

The Chairman But it was not so recognized. 

Mr. Hays. I recognized it as such. Maybe I was alone, but I 
thought so. 

The Chairman. But the people there did not. But where we see 
defects, it Would seem to me that it Would be our responsibility to 
cure them. 

Mfs. Pfost, your observation was very pertinent, but down home 
on the farm we make a great deal of cider. And one thing that we 
are always very careful about is picking all the bad apples bef ore they 
are run through the cider mill because there might be only a very 
small percentage of bad apples run through that taints and has a 
tendency to destroy the whole product. I think in the course of some 
of these studies, it isn't the fact that the preponderance of the money 
is spent along certain lines, but it is that a sufficient amount is spent, 
and effectively so, so as to propagate a particular line of thinking 
that might be detrimental to the interests of our Government. But 
still we are just kind of discussing it among Ourselves here, and I 
am willing to forego, after you make your observations. 

Mr. Hays. I think it is interesting. Out home in the cider season 
they pick out the wormy apples if they have time, but if they get 
rushed, they throw them all in and people buy it just the same. But 
I just wonder if you are insinuating that this bad book, or at least 
we will call it that, that the professor is talking about, could taint his 
book. It couldn't, could it? 

The Chaiemakt. I don't think it could taint his book, but I could 
think where it might spoil it in such a way as to reduce the interest in 
a sound way. 

Mr. Hays. Then we better investigate the publisher. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 


Mr. Hays. No, I have another question. I want to go back to' the= 
molehill and mountain deal. As I got your statement, you are say- 
ing lof -2 things': 'Eithe)c ; ' J tliati}azism:wa»-a I hioleMirortMt1^,p#f^ue'.' 
didnot^recogl&izeitfor'wliatitwas. Which is it? 

The Chairman. In the very beginning they did not recognize* it f Or 
what it was, I think. They waited too long. 

Mr. Hats. Yes. Well, you and I are agreeing. And when they did! 
recognize it for what it was, it had become a mountain then. 

The Chairman. Yes. I was expressing agreement with your line- 
of thinking. I was just developing it a little more. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to Dr. Hobbs that I 
think he ought to make clear, which I believe is the fact, that he 
does not intend merely to discuss 3 or 4 books as the only books in 
this area which have any unpleasant connotation to him. What he is- 
really doing is giving them as illustrations, perhaps particularly 
sharp illustrations, of the use of what he calls scientism and its pro- 
motion by foundations. Please answer this yourself, Dr. Hobbs, but 
isn't your main thesis that what you call scientism widely promoted 
by foundations and that in itself has a deleterious effect on society t. 

Dr. Hobbs. The thesis is not in the book in relation to the founda- 
tions specifically, but I would say that, speaking in general terms> the' 
thing which I call scientism is promoted in an appreciable measure 
by the foundations. And scientism has been described as a point of 
view, an idea, that science can solve all of the problems of mankind, 
that it can take the place of traditions, beliefs, religion, and it is 
in the direction of that type of thing that so much of the material 
in the social sciences is pointed. I am not saying that we have reached 
that, or that many would come out blatantly and say that now that can? 
or should be done. But it seems to me, and I may be wrong, but it does 
seem to me that we are going in that direction, and it is time that 
we might take a little stock of it. 

Mr. Hats. How many copies of this particular book do you suppose- 
have ever been sold? 

Dr. Hobbs. Which book is that? 

Mr. Hats. The one by Stuart Chase that you are quoting from. 

Dr. Hobbs. I don't know the sales. It was widely reviewed and ad- 
vertised, publicized extensively, but sales figures I don't have. 

Mr. Hats. Would you be remotely acquainted at all with the works 
of Mickey Spillane ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Hats. Do you think Stuart Chase or Mickey Spillane has done 
more damage to America ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is in another area. 

Mr. Hats. Well, of course, any other book except this one would 
probably be in a little different area. 

Dr. Hobbs. No ; I am confining this to the influence of social science- 
Mr. Spillane, I think, does not pretend to be a social scientist. 

Mr. Hats. I don't know what he pretends to be ; but I would say 
that he is having some sort of an effect on social science, at least on 
social behavior r and even perhaps a more serious effect than Chase is 
having, and I wouldn't be surprised that he has had as much effect 
or more than Kinsey, because I expect more people have read his 

Dr. Hobbs. I expect they have. 


Mr. Hats. And even a far more vicious effect, in my mind, would 
be coming from some of these horror comic books that are widely^ 

Dr. Hobbs. That may be. The contextin which I pl8K}e^i4s,**feoto#iv 
is in the influence of science or social science on these things. For 
example, a novel by Philip Wylie called Opus 21 came out, based 
in large measure on the Kinsey findings, and the theme, briefly, was 
in outline that the protagonist of the novel meets a girl who is sitting; 
in a New York saloon, sitting there reading the Kinsey book. And 
the protagonist 

Mr. Hats. That is definitely fiction, is it not? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. The protagonist tries to find out what is on her 
mind — — 

Mr. Hats. I would say they had stupid characters in that book. 
I mean, you have painted a picture there. He wouldn't have to try to» 
very hard, would he? 

Dr. Hobbs. Then the theme develops that what happened was that 
she found out that her husband was homosexual, and she had left 
him because he was homosexual. Then throughout the remainder 
of the book this protagonist is explaining to her that science, in this 
case Kinsey, has proved that homosexuality is normal and that she 
is the abnormal one for leaving him. And finally the protagonist 
convinces her of this, so whereupon she forms a homosexual alliance 
herself and returns to her homosexual husband and presumably they 
live happily ever after. It is in this way that what starts out as 
being science or social science spreads out into popular literature;. 

Mr. Hays. Would you mind telling me how you came to read that 

Dr. Hobbs. I forget the exact circumstances. I read pretty widely. 
I read a lot of books. 

Mr. Hats. I was wondering if it was in connection with the research 
on Kinsey. I am not being a bit facetious when I say this — maybe I am 
too conservative and too archaic and too far behind the times, but 
I cannot imagine very many people wasting their time to read that 
kind of stuff. 

Dr. Hobbs. If I may continue, the cultural deterministic theme is 
then tied in with the cultural lag, the cultural lag hypothesis, and 
briefly the cultural lag hypothesis is that the technology has advanced 
very greatly, but that our ideas, our beliefs, our traditions, have not 
kept pace with it. Therefore, there is a lag between the technological 
advance and the culture, and the implication is that the beliefs, ideas, 
sentiments and so on, about the family, the church, about government, 
should be brought up to date with the technology, which superficially 
sounds reasonable enough, except when you begin to analyze it it really 
settles down to being in the first place, a nonscientific notion, because- 
two things being compared are not commensurable, that is, they have- 
not been reduced to any common denominator by which you can 
measure the relative rates of change in between them. 

Mr. Hats. I hate to keep interrupting you here, but I can't help 
wondering about one thing, and I would like to know the answer, if 
there is any way of knowing it. We are spending a lot of time on the- 
book of Mr. Chase, and I would like to know how widely that thing- 
was printed and circulated. 


If hardly anybody rea& it, it couldn't Jrave had muohirtflueaicte.. Mr. 
Worinser^ is there any way we can get the distribution of that* how; 
many thousands or hundreds or millions of copies of it there were? 

Mr/WoKMSEE. I can find out for you, sir. >; 

Mr. Hays. People in this audience are probably all people who are 
interested in this, or they would not be here. I wonder if anyone 
in the room has read it besides Dr. Hobbs. I never heard of it until 
^his morning. 

The Chairman. In addition to the circulation, of the boob, am I 
right that earlier you referred to other publications that quoted ex- 
cerpts, pertinent excerpts, from the ' book, in advancing certain 

Dr. Hobbs. I don't believe, sir, that I did relate to that, no, sir. ^ 

Mr. Hats. You might have mentioned book reviews, or reviews in 
say the New York Times book magazine, or something. Probably 
there was one, I suppose, was there not ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. But unless you were specifically interested in either Mr. 
Chase or the subject, you probably wouldn't even read that. 

Dr. Hobbs. Or the foundations, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Yes. 

Dr. Hobbs. Then this cultural lag notion has the implication that 
we should keep religion up to date, and patriotic sentiments, ideas 
about marriage and the family. 

Well, if you do this, of course by implication to take an extreme 
illustration, then you would have to modify your religion every time 
there was a significant technological change with automobiles or air- 
planes, things of that sort, which would give you of course a gi*eat 
deal of lack of permanence. 

The cultural lag theory has appeared in many if not most of the 
sociology textbooks with the implication that we should abandon the 
traditional forms of belief about the family and religion. Inescapa- 
bly that tends to be the implication. The way Stuart Chase puts it : 

The cultural concept dissolves old ideologies and eternal varities but gives us 
something more solid to stand on, or so it seems to me. Prediction takes shape, 
the door to the future opens, and light comes through. Not much yet, but enough 
to shrivel many intellectual quacks, oververbalized seers and theorists, whose 
theories cannot be verified. 

At the very time he j^ talking about a theory which cannot be veri- 
fied. Then I will just mention one thing that is stressed in Mr* Chafe's 
book, and that is the belief is stressed that the polls, opinion polls, had 
been scientifically verified and that they could and should be used bj 
the general public. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, right there a lot of people have tried to sell that 
idea before. I remember a magazine one time that had a wide circu- 
lation predicated on the belief that its poll was exact. I think the 
name of it was Literary Digest. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. It died a very abrupt death after 1936. 

Dr. Hobbs. The significance here, sir, is that this opinion and belief 
did not die. Because it still has the prestige of science to verify it. 

Mr. Hats. You mean in the validity of polls? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. , 

Mr. Hats. I don't agree with that. I don't take too much stock of 
polls. I vividly remember the Gallup mistake in 1948. 


He probably will make some more. I don't consider myself to be 
a superintelligent citizen. I think polls are maybe able to indicate 
a trend, but you couldn't rely on them as being absolutely factual and 
something you could never doubt for a minute and I don't think very 
many other people will. 

Dr. Hobbs. The point I am trying to make, sir, is that with the pres- 
tige of science behind a thing like polling, you could get to the point 
where they would be substituted for elections and things like that. Mr. 
Chase cites examples of that tendency in a highly approving fashion. 
This was written just prior to the election results of 1948. Just sup- 
pose for a minute that we had accepted this so-called science and aban- 
doned the election of 1948 and taken the word of the pollsters. 

Mr. Hays. As long as you have skeptics like me, it would never do 
that. I refuse to accept the validity of the Gallup poll, and that is 
why I am here today. I came down here in the 1948 Dewey landslide. 

Dr. Hobbs. Suppose it had been based on a poll instead of an elec- 
tion. The results might be quite different. 

Mr. Hays. I think you are predicating something there on a fool- 
ish assumption. I don't think we will ever substitute polls for elec- 
tions. At least, you will never get the politicians to agree. 

Dr, Hobbs. Mr. Chase cites the desirability of this polling tech- 
nique and illustrations of where it is being used by another social 
scientist, who also wrote a book along the same lines, George Lun- 
berg — Can Science Save Us ? — and cites Lunberg as using the polls; 
in actual practice. He quotes here : 

There is no limit to the future of the technique — 

That is the polling technique — 

on this front. 

That is, measuring political attitudes and beliefs. 

Mr. Hays. He apparently never heard about this fellow who ran 
for sheriff. Is that in your State, Mr. Reece ? He said he shook 9,000 
hands, kissed two hundred-and-some babies, traveled 9,000 miles and 
got only 243 votes. His poll didn't turn out so well. He thought he 
was going to win. 

Dr. Hobbs. The difference in all of this is that these are presented 
as being scientific and the prestige of science is that there is more of 
a tendency to accept these than to accept other techniques. [Eeading :] 

Then, as the elections of 1948 changed the conclusions to be drawn from the 
foregoing two chapters, clearly Presidential polling is no exact science. 

That is, the results have come out and conflicted with the results of 
especially the Gallup and Roper polls. So Mr. Chase had to back up, 
backpeddle quite a bit on this. 

Mr. Hays, At least, we give him credit for admitting he was wrong. 

Dr. Hobbs. He could do little else at that point. It was such a 
fiasco : 

Does 1948 wrong prediction mean the downfall of the present elections as the 
downfall in 1936 caused the downfall of the Literary Digest? Does it meam 
as some critics declare that sampling theory itself is suspect and science can 
never be applied to human affairs? Certainly not— 

He answers his own question— - 
One error or a hundred errors cannot invalidate the scientific method. 


There you have a glimpse, a glimmer, of the type of, you might 
■say, arrogance that this supposed scientific method, which, I repeat 
and emphasize, is not scientific, will and can, no matter what the 
errors are, no matter what the mistakes are, will be foisted, pushed on 
the public scene, whereas with the Literary Digest you gage it in the 
terms of commercial appeal, and after the failure in 1936, it folds up 
-as a magazine. But this type of thing continues. It not only con- 
tinues but it expands. 

Mr. Hats. There was one difference between Dr. Gallup's mistake 
and the Literary Digest, wasn't there ? Dr. Gallup made a slight mis- 
take of a few percentage points, but they had Landon winning 
foy 36 or 40 States, whereas he actually carried only 2. 

Dr. Hobbs. His percentage figures are a matter of statistical manip- 
ulation. I could go into that in some detail. The actual error is 
-appreciably greater than you would be led to believe by the state- 
ments of Dr. Gallup. But that would be a statistical matter which 
is not particularly germane. In this book, in summary, you have 
throughout it, among other things, this characteristic emphasis on 
►cultural determinism, cultural relativity, the idea that if you find a 
primitive group which permits wife lending, then, by implication, 
that is all right for us, too, and emphasis on Kinsey throughout the 
'book as having now discovered the scientific facts about sex, and the 
-emphasis on cultural lag that we should jettison older beliefs and 
! bring all our beliefs up to the latest advances in technology. 

In one section in the book, you do get a balanced presentation. This 
is the section dealing with economics. Mr. Chase knows the field of 
economics much more, much better, than he knows these other fields. 
So when it came to economics, there he admitted that economics was 
not a science ? and he cited, as I recall it, 155 erroneous, seriously errone- 
ous, economic predictions to show that economics was not a science. 
My feeling in reading the book was this, that if Mr. Chase knew that 
about his own field, and if he were relying as he says he was, and as 
the book indicates, if he were relying on these experts from the founda- 
tions for the other areas, why didn't they warn him of the limitations 
in these other fields, sociology, anthropology, and so on, in the same 
way in which he himself knew of the limitations in economics. 

It was certainly their responsibility, it would seem to me, to have 
■emphasized these limitations rather than to give Mr. Chase the im- 
pression, and through him many other people the impression, that 
these areas are really scientific in the sense in which the term applies 
in physical science. The next and final book which I want to cite is 
actually in four volumes. The title is The American Soldier, a 
subtitle is Studies in Social Psychology in World War Two. It was 
prepared and edited under the auspices of a special committee of the 
Social Science Research Council, published by the Princeton Uni- 
versity Press in 1949 and 1950. I will give you some of the back- 
ground of this. 

In this, I want to cite it as an illustration of the influence of sup- 
posed social science on military policy at a high level and, further- 
more, that this influence was, according to the book itself which, 
Temember, was written by persons favorable to the effects which the 
•social scientist brought about. Even in this type of presentation, 
there is a definite and repeated evidence that the military, with what 
turned out to be excellent reasons, struggled against this thing right 


down the line, and the social scientists were able to overwhelm them, 
were able to incorporate their own ideas in a matter of highest military 
significance against the opposition of the military of the United States. 

Mr. Hays. What did they do against the will of the military? 

Dr. Hobbs. Well, may I develop it? I will bring that out, what 
seems to me to be the crucial point here. 

The Research Branch was officially established in October 1941, 
within what was known, successively, as the Morale Division, Special 
.Services Division, and Information and Education Division. Here 
is one of the indications of the resistance of the military in purely mili- 
tary matters. Earlier efforts to set up such machinery within the 
Army had been blocked by a directive from the Secretary of War, 
which said : 

Our Army must be a cohesive unit, with a definite purpose shared by all. Such 
an Army can be built only by the responsible effort of all of its members, com- 
missioned and enlisted. An anonymous opinion, or criticism, good or bad, is 
•destructive in its effect on a military organization, where accepted responsibility 
on the part of every individual is fundamental. It Is therefore directed that 
because of their anonymous nature, polls will not be permitted among the per- 
sonnel of the Army of the United States. 

Mr. Hays. Does that make it right because the Secretary said that? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. It does not make it wrong, either. 
■ Mr. Hays. One time he issued a letter that a soldier could not write 
a letter to his Congressman. But the Congress sort of changed his 
mind about that. I would say from my experience with the Army, 
it is very difficult to inculcate them with any idea. They resist any- 
thing in the way of change. They resisted the use of air power. 

You will remember they made one man in this country die of a 
broken heart. Of course, he was right all along. The Navy right now 
is resisting the abandoning of battleships. Of course, they are nice 
ships, I have been on them and all of that, but they dont have much 
value any more in war. But they are still using them. The very 
fact that the Army resisted them does not mean much to me. I do 
not know what they resisted, but whatever it was that is their usual 

Dr. Hobbs. May I please develop this point? 

The full story of how the War Department changed from a position of flat 
opposition to such research to one in which it would use such research not only 
:for internal planning but as justification to the American people for such a vital 
program as its demobilization system should someday make instructive reading. 

That is a quote from volume 1 of the American Soldier. I would 
say it certainly should make interesting reading. 

Many factors converge to make possible the establishment of the Research 
^Branch, not the least of which was the character and personality of the new 
Director of the Morale Division, directly commissioned from civilian life, Brig. 
Oen. Frederick H. Osborne, later major general. He was a businessman who 
was also the author of two volumes on social science. In spite of General 
Osborne's personal prestige, his persuasive skill, which had served him so well 
in business, and his deep sincerity, there were times when even these assets 
might have availed little against occasional opposition at intermediate echelons, 
had not General Marshall unequivocably, supported the strange, new program. 

Mr. Hays. Doctor, I think before you start accusing General Mar- 
shall or anybody else 

Dr. Hobbs. I have accused General Marshall of nothing, sir, I have 
quoted from the book. 


Mr. Hays. What is your strange new program? Is it fair to ask 
you that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is what they term it, not me. 

Mr. Hats. What is it? 

Dr. Hobbs. It was a program of taking opinion polls to determine- 
military decisions. 

Mr. Hats. Do you mean the last war was run on opinion polls ? 

Dr. Hobbs. It would have been run to a much greater degree^— - 

Mr. Hats. I think Eisenhower ought to resign, then, because I think 
he got elected on the grounds that he ran the war. He made his 
reputation on that. If it was run on polls, then we have been under 
a lot of misapprehension. 

Dr. Hobbs. I quote again from the book : 

A major purpose of the research staff was to provide a basis of factuali 

I will interject. When they say "factual knowledge," they mean 
knowledge based upon opinion polls, which are much more fallacious 
than political polls, which involve merely the choice of a candidate.. 

Factual knowledge which would help the director of the Army Information and 
Education Division in his administrative and policy decisions. This purpose' 
was abundantly fulfilled. Without research, we would have too often been work- 
ing in the dark. With research, we knew our course and were able to defend' 
it before Congress and the press. Further, we made a remarkable discovery. 
The Army gave little weight to our personal opinions, but when these opinions 
were supported by factual studies — 

and, again, if I may interject, these are not factual studies, they are 
opinion studies — 

the Army took them seriously — 

and here, again, you get the influence which, in some cases, may be 
good, but in other cases could be very disastrous due to the aura of 
science which surrounds this type of investigation. 

For the first time on such a scale, the attempt to direct human behavior was- 
in part, at least, based on scientific evidence. If this method could be developed 
and more widely used, it might provide further impetus for a great advance 
in the social relations of man. To that hope, these volumes are dedicated. 

The main thing, these polls went into many, many aspects of be- 
havior in the military, but the one thing I would like to concentrate on 
is the point system of discharge, the system by means of which the 
military forces of the United States were demobilized at the end of 
World War II, demobilized in rapid, and in the perspective of history,, 
chaotic fashion. 

Mr. Hays. You know something right there, there was a cause for 
demobilization more than any poll, speech on the floor of this House,, 
or numerous speeches, but I am thinking of one, jn which a Member 
of Congress who now holds a very high position in the Armed Services 
Committee, who was not satisfied with getting the men demobilized 
by bringing them home on the Queen Mary, but he wanted to fly them 
home. That is in the Congressional Record. I am not going to drop 
his name into the hearings, I do not want to embarrass him. But most 
anybody could learn who it was. I say to you advisedly, gir^ .that 
speeches such as that had much more to do with demobilizing than any 
opinion poljs, or private opinion polls, or Army opinion ppjls they 
took. The pressure of the American people back home wag American 
democracy, and perhaps I might say that some Members of the Con- 


gress yielded to that to the extent of doing a little "demagoging" on the 
subject, thinking that was a popular viewpoint. Maybe you and I 
think it is bad, but I don't think we are going to change, it. ; 

Dr. Hobbs. Exactly. 

Mr. Hats. One other question right there. I am trying to be very 
friendly. I do Hot mean to embarrass you. You do* not mean to 
infer, and I am afraid that maybe- some might have gotten the infer- , 
ence from a question that I asked, you do not mean to infer that 
they took a poll ori whether they should invade through the soft 
underbelly or across the channel, do you, or what day the invasion 
should go across, and so on? 

Dr. Hobbs. Well, they admit that they were not able to do as many 
things as they wanted to do. 

Mr. Hays. That you think they might have liked to do? 

Dr. Hobbs, Well, I don't know. 

Mr. Hats. You know that is a funny thing. In my limited expe- 
rience with the Army, nobody evei? asked me anything. They just 
told me. I might say, if I volunteered— I .did once ; and I got to 
dig latrines, so; in all of my experience with it, they discouraged you 
from offering opinions. 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, there is an old Army precept that you violated 
when you volunteered. 

Mr. Hats. I know. That was the fiarsfc day. They asked for people 
who could operate a typewriter. I stepped forward and he said) 
""Well, if you can run a typewriter* you ought to. be. able .to handle 
a pick." 

The Chairman. You may proceed now. 

Dr. Hobbs. Here is some more background of this point system 
of discharge: 

In the course of a speech" to tile American people" in> 1944, PrtftftdeflM Roose- 
velt justified the Army's plans for demobilization at the end of the war on 
the grounds that the order of demobilisation would be determined ia terms 
of what the soldier's themselves wanted. 'I'he idea of a point system for 
demobilization had been conceived in the research branch and accepted by 
the Wai-'UepartMe't* an#- t&g J^esidto*. Representative samples of mea 
throughout the world were queried and from their responses th» variables of 
length of feferyiee> overseas duty, combat duty* and parenthood, emerged as 
most significant • 

If I may interject, from these opinion polls, you can be very much 
misled about things like this, and in a matter so big, so important, 
it is extremely hazardous to use them, not that they don't have a 
use, or not that efforts should not be made to develop them as far 
as we can and so on, but as yet, certainly, it is very risky to use them 
in matters of this kind. 

The final weights assigned to these variables yielded point scores wbidh have 
a elose correspondence with the wishes of the maximum number of soldiers, 
even if it did not exactly reproduce these wishes. 

And then they go on to say that the point system established the 
order not the rate of demobilization, and that is a questionable con- 
tention, because when you have given and publicized a notion of this 
kind, here, again, is an illustration of where the fact that you make 
the study can change the situation which you are studying. If you 
give members of the armed services the notion that they are to be 
and should be consulted on vital military policy, then this fact in 


itself can create dissatisfaction, unrest, of the very type of thing 
which the Secretary previously had anticipated. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, all of this is new to me, but did the foundations; 
have anything to do with encouraging this point systemin the Arnjyl 
Did they get into this act in any way ? 

Dr. Hobb. The people involved were people who were previ- 
ously, and most of them still are, very heavy recipients of founda- 
tion funds, and the foundations, as I indicated, the Social Science- 
Research Council, did get this material at the end of the war, got the 
material declassified by the War Department and worked on it and 
then it was published through the — the various volumes were pub- 
lished through a series of authors, with the senior author being Prof.. 
Samuel A. Stouffer. 

Mr. Hats. Are you challenging anything in there as to the validity^ 
of it? That is not a good way of phrasing. Are you challenging in 
your statement whether or not this did happen or did not happen?: 
Are you challenging the theory behind it % 
Dr. Hobbs. The theory.. It did happen, as I am citing. 
Mr. Hats. In other words, if the book says so and it happened,, 
about the only connection the foundations have is that they made it 
possible for that book to be published, is that right ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Not only made it possible to be published, but the in- 
fluence, what I am pointing out here — the influence of this type of" 
social science, what it can have and does have in this context, in the- 
military, even in a military sphere. 
Mr. Hats. You do not think the point system was bad, do you ? 
Dr. Hobbs. I was in the service, too, and fortunately I had enough; 
points to get out so at that time I thought it was good. Incidentally, 
I stayed in awhile longer but I was glad that under this I could haver 
gotten out at an earlier date if I wanted to. But I made no pre- 
tense — — 

Mr. Hats. As I remember it, the decision was made that we were* 
going to demobilize and we were going to discharge a certain number 
of men. Now, what we come to is to find out which ones we keep* 
and which ones we let go. 

Dr. Hobbs. That was not a military decision. The military de- 
cision was quite different. 

Mr. Hats. Maybe the Congress made the decision, but somebody 
said you are going to discharge so many, right ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. The groups, the individuals, rather, who were- 
discharged, and the nature of the entire demobilization program was,, 
as I would like to point out, the result of this influence of social' 
science rather than the result of military policy which opposed it. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, you do not mean to tell me that if it had not 
been for this little group of social scientists, that we would not have- 
demobilized? '-..■.-■ : i 

Dr. Hobbs. In the manner in whjch we did, we would not. 

Mr. Hats. NeviSr mind the manner. 

Dr. Hobbs. I think that is of vital significance. 

Mr. Hats; I think we are quibbling over something that is not very 
important: I say to you that the American people urged on by eer^ 
tain demagogic speeches said, "We are going to tear this Army down; 1 
bring the boys home." That , is what they wanted: The military was: 

T4X-E2pa£PT F013NPATI0NS 15& 

confronted with the situation, "We are going to bring them home, 
and the politicians are going to say or make us say which ones we are 
goi^g t^ bring first." Is that not what happened ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Which ones we are going to bring home first wa&cler 
termined by the point system. 

Mr. Hats. I think that is all to the good. 

Dr. Hobbs. You may change your opinion, sir. 

The Chairman. I was around here then, as I had been awhile before. 
I never felt any overwhelming demand from home- for demobiliza- 
tion. I heard a lot about it since. 

Mr. Hays. I will refer you to a speech, and I will not mention his 
name, in which he said, "I don't want the boys sent home by sh^p ; I 
think we ought to fly them home," and he is a good orator. You 
know who, he is talking about. 

The Chairman. I know who you are talking about. 

Mr. Hays. He said that, did he not? I was not here then, but I 
thought it was a good idea. 

The Chairman. I never had any overwhelming demand from the 
folks back home. 

Mr. Hays. I do not know what you had, but my predecessor said 
that most of his mail consisted — and it was very heavy in letters from 
mothers, especially after V-E day — of when do we get the boys back. 

Mr. Wormser. May I again ask Dr. Hobbs to clarify something for 
Mr. Hays, namely, if I understand it correctly, that he is not dis- 
cussing the desirability of demobilizing or not demobilizing. What he 
is discussing is essentially this, that instead of the military making the 
decisions to demobilize in such a way as to protect best the welfare of 
the United States, the decision was made under the influence of, a 
group of social scientists, the decision on how the demobijisatiori : 
should take place, not the quantity but how, and that that decision 
nyght well have or it did fly in the face of military necessity. Is that 
correct, Dr. Hobbs ? 

Dr. Hobbs, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. That is interesting and perhaps very true. I would like; 
to hear more- about it. In what way did it fly in the face of military 
necessity? Do you mean the fellows had been in for 6 years, they 
should have kept them because they knew more about it and let the 
boys who served only 90 days outi is that it? 

Dr; Hobbs. May I describe that, please, from the book ? 

Mr. Hays. Sure. 

Dr. Hobbs. There were two schools of thought. 

One school of thought which had particularly strong representation in Army 
Ground Forces tended to see the problem as one of preserving intact at all 
costs the combat fighting teams. 

You see, they were thinking in military terms. 

This meant discharging mainly service troops, limited servicemen, and soldiers . 
not yet fully trained. Combat veterans, especially the experienced noncom's, 
were obviously the core of our magnificent fighting machine. Another school 
of thought, also arguing on the basis of military efficiency— 

they say military efficiency here, but I don't know how they could 

■ "■" it- 

held that the men of longest service should be so disaffected by a policy which 
regarded the men who had made the least sacrifice that the morale of the 
comhat teams would be as much endangered by retaining such men as by dis- 
charging some of them. Furthermore, they pointed out 

1S0 TAK0feSgBi&#P> ^OtftSDATION®' 

Mr. Hays. Do you Agreif with that- cbnclusio'ri t- - ■ \ ' - 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. '^- '■■: *■-' - ;;: - ;; 

Mr. Hays. You do riot think the morale would have been affected 
at all?- ■ •■: '■■<■- ■■ ■:.<■■•<> -■ \ . :■'■• ■■■ ■■-•^ r ; -' v/ ■ : '' ? - : - :l -' :lt 

Dr. Hobbs. It would have been affected fetdiiie, btlt in relative tfeirnis ? 
of military strategy and policy, I do not think the effect would have 
been so great here as it would have been oil the other side; 

Mr. Hays. Let me tell yon something about that. I will give you 
the benefit of my experience. I was in Greece in 1949 with General 
Van Fleet for a few days. General Van Fleet went to Greece and 
took a disorganized, beaten, army, and in 2 years made man for man, 
I will say, one of the finest fighting forces the world ha£ ever steen. 
But do you know what he told me his biggest problem was? They 
knew how to fight, but his biggest problem was morale because most 
of those men that he got a hold of had been in the Greek Army f Or 
9 years, and their morale was shot to pieces because they had b^en 
fighting and lots of people back home had riot been called upon to 
do anything more than run away from the Communists. Arid he said 
that that was his biggest problem. So that just is contrary to the 
theory that you say, is it not, it would not have affected morale ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Tdid not say, sir, that it would not have affected morale. 
The question here is which would have affected the military strength 
of the United States more^ and that question, I would Answer,, me 
policy of the point system of discharge, in my opinion, which is cer- 
tainly not a professional opinion, professional military opinion, in 
my opinion would have affected it more than thfe other. 

Mr. Hays. Doctor, I again want to say that yoli have a perfect 
right to your opinion, and it may very well be that your opinion is 
the correct one, I do not happen to agree with it. But that is 6he 
of the beautiful things about the democracy we hate. Let mei May 
further along that line, that it would have been probable iri Anything 
but a democracy, that the military would have been able to do what- 
ever they wanted to do. But unfortunately, from their point of view, 
and I say this from my point of view fortunately, in a democracy, 
such as we have, even sometimes the will of the people can be rilade 
to have an influence on the military. 

Dr. Hobbs. But, sir, this was not the will of the people. 

Mr. Hays. I disagree very vitally with you. 

Dr. Hobbs. It may have been the will of the people that this hap- 
pened, but the influencing factor, and this is what I am trying to 
stress, the influencing factor was not a balance such as it should be 
democratically, not a, balance of conflicting opinions, but it was the 
influence of what was called social science. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I say to you that I was back in Ohio at that time, 
and it was the influence of the people back home. That is what it was. 
I do not think that they knew anything about social science or cared 
less, in the Army. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is quite irrelevant. 

Mr. Hays. They just felt that the boys who had given the most or 
served the longest and who had been in there for the greatest length 
of time ought to come home first. Some who had not been arid 
did not go, if they needed any more men, take them. That prin- 
ciple still applies today. We have pretty much of a rotation under 
the draft system, and I do not think you will disagree that that 


is because the people want it that way. You know, the Army wanted 
universal military training, but they did not get it. Why didn't they 
get it ? Because the Congress did not vote to give it to them. Why 
didn't the Congress vote to give it to them? Because a good many 
of them felt that if they did, they would not come back to Congress. 
It is just as simple as that. That is the way democracy makes itself 

Dr. Hobbs. On these issues, I am not pretending that I am right or 
you are wrong. That really is not involved. 

Mr. Hays. I am only putting these in in order to show that there 
are two sides to it. I certainly want to say right here and now that 
there is a side that you are presenting, and it certainly can be a valid 
one. In other words, I am saying there is plenty of room for argu- 
ment, but the only reason I am interrupting you is so that the record 
will not show that we sit here and concur m these views which may 
or may not be yours, even. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is quite proper. 

The Chairman. I am assuming that my silence will not be construed 
as agreeing with everything you nave to say. 

Mr. Hats. I cannot be responsible for anything that anybody con- 
strues about your silence. I would suggest that you just speak up. 
That is the way I do. Just because you think I am wrong, I will not 
get wrong. 

The Chairman. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Hobbs. Thank you. The book referred to two schools of 
thought. It continues : 

Proponents of the first point of view — 

that is, the military — 

had an additional argument which has a special plausibility. If discharges were 
to be made on the basis of entire units, the Army would not be opened to charges 
of favoritism to individuals. If an individual's record were taken into account, 
there was too much chance of a scandal, particularly if the Army yielded to 
political pressure to discharge certain individuals or certain categories of individ- 
uals without respect to military needs. It was admitted that the replacement 
system had operated so that a given unit was likely to contain personnel with a 
very wide range of service and that a unit discharge would give new replace- 
ments in demobilized outfits a head start in civilian life over the combat veterans 
in outfits retained. But this was advanced as the lesser of two evils. 

Then they describe the fact that they took the polls, and one poll 
was taken and as a result of that first poll the criteria for discharge, 
the basis for the point system, included length of time in the Army, 
age, overseas service, and dependency. Combat service was not 
included in the first poll. But in the first poll, they had left a place 
where the soldiers could write in things which they believed should 
be included in a discharge system, and one of the things which was 
written in frequently was the thought that combat experience should 
be weighted into the point system. 

After studying the data of the type summarized in the tables 1 and 2, General 
Osborne decided to put all of the influence of the Information and Education 
Division behind a system which would : (a) establish priorities on an individual 
not a unit basis; and (b) take into account the explicit preferences of the 
soldiers themselves insofar as the latter was consistent with military necessity. 
On the basis of soldier preferences, the Information and Educational Division 

49720— £4— pt. 1- ^11 


recommended a point system which would take into account combat, measured by 
length of time in the combat zone and by number of Purple Hearts awarded, 
the number of months of overseas service, the number of children, and the length 
of time in the Army. After lengthy discussions, the War Department accepted 
the outlines of this proposal, leaving to a future date the setting of the exact 
number of points for each category and the method of determining such a factor 
as combat service. This decision was announced to the public in September 1944. 

And again, if I may interject, once you publicize a thing; like this, 
you create a different situation than the one which existed before. 

It was decided that the actual points to be assigned would not be announced 
until after the surrender of Germany. Between September 1944 and the defeat 
of Germany, there followed several months in which there was much argument 
in the special planning division as to the assignment of points. The four factors, 
longevity in the Army, overseas service, combat and parenthood, had been 
publicly announced, but it was thought still possible by opponents of the plan — 

and this is another instance where you see persistently the military 
for reasons which they had but which they could not publicly reveal, 
sensed or knew that we were going to run into a situation in Europe 
with one of our then allies, that is, K-u-s-s-i-a. 

Mr. Hats. Would you repeat that statement ? 

Dr. Hobbs. The indications are that the military knew or at least 
it sensed that there was a good likelihood of running into trouble with 
Russia at the end of the German war, but, however, at that time, we 
were allies with Russia. They could not publicize this. They had to 
keep it quiet. Yet it turns out they were right. They could have 
been wrong, but it turns out they were quite correct. Here is another 
group which probably knew nothing of this very important military 
matter, and, knowing nothing, they still insist and push and get this 
type of thing adopted. 

Mr. Hats. I am very interested in that statement, because I am just 
wondering whether it is valid or not. I do not give the military the 
benefit of that much foresight. I will tell you why. The military 
made the agreement with the Russians about Berlin, and about all of 
the matters of the ways to get in Berlin and what have you. The 
military also made the agreements with the Russians about Vienna. 
You probably know that we have never had any trouble about Vienna 
but we have had a lot of trouble about Berlin, for the simple reason 
that the group of military men who made the rules down at Vienna 
made one set of rules and there was another set of rules made up at 

The Russians have taken every advantage, as the Communists 
always do, to harass, to blockade, to do everything they could within 
the rules. I have been in both places a number of times since the war. 
Every time I go to Berlin, I go by the sufferance of the Communists. 
But if you go to Vienna, it is very clearly outlined that from the air- 
field to Vienna, the road is American property. There is no such 
outline about the road from the American zone to Berlin. That seems 
to be Russian property. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Hats. Maybe the boys down at Vienna had some indications 
thoy were going to have trouble with Russia, or maybe if they were 
smart enough to have them, to do something about them, but appar- 
ently the boys in Berlin, if they felt that way, didn't take any 

Dr. Hobbs. I guess the Russians considered Berlin for what it is, a 
much more important 


The Chairman. I do not think we ought to get into this question, 
but I am not sure that the military was the sole determining factor in 
the arrangements up around Berlin. I think that question might 
very well be left open. 

Mr. Hats. I made a statement there and I am standing on it. I 
said that they made the ground rules. I don't say they made the 
decision that we would pull back from here or pull back from there, 
but they in conference with the Kussian high command made the 
ground rules. You do not need to take my word for it, you can go 
back and get the history and get the pictures of them having their 
parties together. 

I don't know who did the job down at Vienna, but those unsung 
heroes certainly did a lot better job than was done up north. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Professor Hobbs, before you begin, if I may, how much time do you 
think would be required for you to complete your statement ? 

Mr. Hays. Without any interruption. 

Dr. Hobbs. Without any interruptions, this material on the Ameri- 
can soldier, maybe 15 minutes, and then there is another matter, a 
final matter which will come up which should take no longer than 5 
or 10 minutes. 

Mr. Wormser. I have a few questions I would like to ask, myself, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Would it be inconvenient for you to be here 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. I have made arrangements in Philadelphia 
to be here on Thursday, so I could have gone back tonight but it would 
be no special hardship to stay over. 

The Chairman. Why do we not run until 4 o'clock? 

Mr. Hats. Let him finish with this subject. 

Dr. Hobbs (reading) : 

It was thought still possible by opponents to the plan to obtain the benefit of 
claiming soldier endorsement and still manipulate the weights so that overseas 
service and combat service actually would count negligibly toward the total score. 
The Information and Education Division always recognizing that military 
necessity should come first — 

Now, where they interject these matters of military necessity, and 
so on, I question that they really comprehended them in high degree, 
but that is a question — 

held that either the final points must have the effect of approximating the priori- 
ties desired by the majority of soldiers or else the reasons why this wasn't 
possible in terms of military necessity should be frankly admitted by the Army. 

In other words, they pressed the military group, and if they had 
as their reason the possibility of Russian aggression and encroach- 
ment into European territories, such as actually did happen, if the 
military had that in mind, they could not publicly announce it because 
Russia at that time was an ally. And from a standpoint of both mili- 
tary policy and from a standpoint of diplomatic policy, it was just 
something that they could not do. Yet tliis group pushed them into 
a position where they had to do it or accept this point system of 
discharge which the military consistently opposed. 

To increase the combat credit, it was decided also to give five points for each 
decoration received, including the Purple Heart for wounds. This decision made- 
at a -time when it was thought that the Air Forces would be discharged on a. 


different basis from the rest of the Army, was to lead eventually to some feelings 
of injustice. When Air Forces were blanketed in under a uniform point system, 
the numerous decorations of flying personnel gave these men priorities which 
were particularly to be resented by veterans of ground combat. 

There are two items there, one, that this is supposed to make par- 
ticularly the ground combat men pleased and happy but it turns out 
that it makes them disgruntled and dissatisfied. The second is that 
when it is (probably in an unforeseen manner) applied to the Air 
Force, which was, of course, if you were to name at that stage and 
under those circumstances the one crucial unit of the military services 1 , 
you would probably name the Air Force ; when it was applied to them 
then it resulted in an extremely rapid, almost chaotic disbandment 
of the American Air Forces in Europe. 

Among the combat veterans in the worldwide cross section there was a sharp 
difference of attitude as between Air Force veterans and ground force veterans. 
Among the former, whose point scores were inflated by numerous decorations, 
a third — 

that is, this resulted in a situation where one-third of the personnel 
of the Air Force was immediately entitled to discharge under the 
point system which, obviously, disrupted the military value of the 
Air Force — 

among the Air Force there was one-third that had 85 points or over, while among 
the latter — 

that is the ground forces — 

only one-ninth had 85 points or over. Incredible as it seemed at the time to 
many in the Information and Education Division, there was a strong sentiment 
within the War Department for eliminating combat credit entirely after V-J 

and again, as you learn throughout this, the military was attempting 
to preserve the power, the strategical military power of the United 
States, and in retrospect it certainly appears that they had good 
reasons for that decision. But again you get this group pushing 
them, preventing them from using military principles in a military 
situation, sacrificing such principles for what is called social science. 

The research report quoted above played a part in the War Department's 
decision to leave the point system intact after V-J Day. It was felt that the 
capitulation of Japan was so near at hand that any recalculation of point 
scores should not be undertaken unless overwhelmingly sought by the men. 
This was a keen disappointment to some of the revisionists in the War Depart- 
ment who were working to reduce or eliminate overseas and combat credit. It 
was also a disappointment, though perhaps a lesser one, to the Information and 
Education Division, which would have preferred an increase in credit for over- 
seas service, and an addition of the combat infantry badge to the elements 
counting for combat credit. 

Mr. Wobmser. I would like to be sure of the stenographer, to be 
sure that you are quoting from somebody else's work. 

Dr. Hobbs. I am quoting from volume II of American Soldier. 
That is another indication of the almost diametrically opposed view- 
points in this military situation, with the social scientist insisting 
on one thing and the military, for what turns out to have been 
eminently good reasons, insisting on another. 

I quote again : 

In the official history of ground forces the havoc played in one division in 
Europe by transfer out of its 85 point men after V-J Day is described in some 
detail. The facts in general were, however, that of all the men with combat 


experience in ground units throughout the world, only 1 man in 9 had 85 points 
or more. 

Now, again, here is an application of a statistic, in a context in 
which it cannot be applied safely. You say, or these people say, 
only 1 in 9. But if this 1 in 9 is a keyman, that might disrupt an 
entire squad. It might even disrupt an entire company. It might 
disrupt the crew of a heavy bomber, and things of that sort, which 
should certainly have been taken into consideration, but which could 
not be taken into consideration with this approach. 

It is true that many of these were keymen, but it is also true that there were 
replacements with combat experience available who could have taken their 
places and, indeed, many more such men than any current estimates for the 
Pacific war required. 

And the citation for that official history of the ground forces 
describing that havoc played in one division in Europe, the citation 
is "United States Army in "World War II, the Army Ground Forces," 
published in Washington 1947. 

They conclude, and I will conclude this material on the American 
Soldier in this way: that is, volume II, which discusses the point 
system sums it up in this way : 

There are "ifs" where history cannot definitively answer. In taking its cal- 
culated risks, the Army won its gamble. 

Now, if I may interject here, it was not the Army, it was this group. 
The Army, the military insisted on quite another policy, and to say 
that the Army won its gamble is misleading and, you might add, one 
more such victory and we are undone. This turned out, in the retro- 
spect of history, to have been an extremely costly political as well as 
military procedure. 

One cannot say for certain what would have happened after V-J Day as well 
as before if there had not been an objective method of demobilization which the 
majority men regarded as fair in principle because "military efficiency" is not 
independent of "morale." There are grounds for believing that the War Depart- 
ment chose collectively when it broke all precedent and went to the enlisted men 
for their opinions before promulgating its redeployment and demobilization policy. 

That is the opinion of the authors of this volume. 

Another and quite contrary opinion, I would say, could be at least 
equally justified. But the point that I wanted to stress all through 
is the way in which social science can and does encroach out and 
expand into areas not only of morality but of politics and in this 
instance military policy which was of the very highest order. Un- 
fortunately, the situation is one in which, at the present time, and in 
the foreseeable future, we just — and I use "we" in the context of social 
scientists — we just don't know enough to gamble with supposedly 
scientific methods in these areas. If mistakes are to be made, let them 
be made by people who are expert in the field, and of course they will 
make mistakes. 

The Chairman. Now do you want to make your concluding state- 
ment, Professor ? We will meet your wishes on that. 

Dr. Hobbs. A question was raised before, I think, about is there any 
pressure exerted on scholars in connection with these things. 

I would like to mention just this : There was another book that came 
out, titled "Studies in the Scope and Method of the American Sol- 
dier," and in one of the reviews — this book contained a number of 
reviews about what was the greatest or seemed to be the greatest feat 


of social science at the time — and in one of the reviews they referred 
to someone, a scholar, who had the temerity to question these findings 
and this is the type of pressure you get in this connection. I quote 
from this book : 

The rivalrous role is enacted by social scientists whose interest in empirical 
research quantitatively reported is low. Since no reviewer has taken the view 
that better research of this type is available or in sight, the rivalrous posture 
involves a preference (stated or implied) for a search of a different type. When 
this preference is merely implied and no alternative specified, the result is a 
vigorous negativism which leads to the extreme attitude we have designated 
as diabolic. 

Now if you will just imagine yourself, you are in this case, a young 
fellow getting started out, and you happen to tread on sacred soil, 
you just do a little bit of criticism against these groups who are so 
powerful. This is the type of thing that comes back at you. I continue 
with the quote : 

Only one reviewer has approximated this extreme view in point, Nathan Glazer, 
who is — 

please note these words — 

who is a young man at the periphery of the profession and hence, perhaps, less 
heedful of its imperatives toward discretion. 

In other words, "If you want to get in with us, watch your step 
and don't criticize our work." 

That type of thing is certainly undesirable, unhealthy, in studies 
which are supposed to be openminded, where you are supposed to 
allow for these differences of opinion which, Congressman, as you 
rightly, I would say, place such high value on. When you get 
pressure of this type it isn't a very good situation. 

Mr. Hats. It seemed to me that you were rather critical of the 
foundations a little earlier for not directing this Mr. Chase, was it, 
in how to write his book. 

Dr. Hobbs. Advising him of the limitations particularly in the 
fields in which these men were supposed to be experts and in which 
he was not. 

Mr. Hays. Would you consider it a salutary situation where if a 
foundation granted money to someone to write a book, to just let 
him go ahead and write it ? It would seem to me they ought not to 
tell him one way or the other. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, I agree with this, but the Chase incident was a 
completely different situation. He was requested, and as the quota- 
tion will show, two important members of the foundation requested 
him to write it. By his own statement they worked with him all 
through and, presumably, were for the purpose of giving him their 
best knowledge and advice and still they permitted him to make a 
series of very extreme, unwarranted statements, about the very mat- 
ters in which these people were supposed to be experts. 

Mr. Hays. I have an impression that his book did not sell very 

Dr. Hobbs. I think that is not too vital a point one way or the 

Mr. Hays. I just might feel, and I am just old-fashioned enough 
to think that maybe the reason it did not is because somebody asked 
him to write it. I always had the old-fashioned belief that if some- 


one had an urge to write a book, and it came because he had the 
urge, that is when you got a good book. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would agree with that principle. 

Mr. Woemser. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Hobbs has some more material 
and I have a few questions which are rather important. I think 
we will have to carry over until tomorrow morning. 

The Chairman. If it is agreeable. I think we are about to reach, 
as they say down home, quitting time. 

As an additional observation with reference to the observation 
you made of what General Van Fleet said about morale, if you will 
pardon me for referring to it, I recall on the 9th of November 1918, 
when I got a message from the brigade commander, stating that it 
was reported that the morale of blank division was bad, and asking 
me to report on the morale of the third battalion, which I happened 
to be commanding as a lieutenant. This message is on record and 
my reply is on record down here in the War Department : 

The morale of the men of the third battalion is good. They may not be 
a hundred percent efficient because of the arduous service they have been 
called upon to render during the past several days, but they are remarkably 
subservient to the will of their officers and are ready to perform any duty 
that may be required of them. 

And that has been the experience I have had, in my limited way, 
in dealing with the American soldiers when they are confronted 
with an important duty, that I have always found them ready to 
perform it, whether they have been in the service 1 month, 1 year, 
or 2 years. 

Mr. Hays. Well, I think that is a valuable addition to my argu- 
ment, that you didn't have to keep the men that had been there the 

The Chapman. We find it necessary to change our committee room 
for tomorrow. The committee will meet in room 1334, being the 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee Boom. That is in the 
New House Office Building. 

I would appreciate the members of the press advising any of the 
others that you might come in contact with, who might be interested 
in the location. 

Mr. Hats. Do you have any plans to bring anyone else besides Dr. 
Hobbs tomorrow ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. Tom McNiece, the assistant research direc- 
tor, who will read another report which we are working our heads 
off to get ready for you at least by the time of the hearing. 

Mr. Hays. Why do you not keep your heads and let me finish ask- 
ing Mr. Dodd some questions about his report before we get another 
one ? It is immaterial to me, but I am ready. 

The Chairman. I think my reaction to orderly procedure would 
be to let Mr. McNiece make his presentation and then any questions 
that you might want to ask of Mr. Dodd or Mr. McNiece could 

Mr. Hays. It is immaterial to me, Mr. Chairman. I do not see 
what that has to do with orderly procedure. In the first place, we 
didn't get Mr. Dodd's statement the day he made it, and I have the 
notes made. I could have gone ahead yesterday except you said Dr. 
Briggs wanted to get back to New Hampshire. I do not want the 
thing to hang fire forever. But I don't care. 


Mr. Wormser. We would -just as soon have Mr. Dodd go on. 

The Chairman. I am inclined to think Mr. McNiece nas a state- 
ment to make and my reaction would be it would be best for him to 
make the statement and then we ought to have the rest of the period 
of the day for questioning. Mr. Dodd can come on first and then if 
we want to question Mr. McNiece we would proceed, if that is 

Mr. Hats. I have no objection except I understand I will be able 
to interrupt Mr. McNiece. 

The Chairman. That is all right. 

We will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 55 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 a. m. Thursday, May 20, 1954.) 


THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Special Commttteee To Investigate 
Tax Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman of 
the special subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece (presiding), Hays, and Pfost. 

Also present : Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 

Who is the first witness % 

Mr. Wormser. We will continue with Professor Hobbs. 


The Chairman. Do you have an additional statement to make, Pro- 
fessor Hobbs, or are you submitting yourself for questioning at this 

Dr. Hobbs. I believe Mr. Wormser indicated that he had some 
questions to ask of me. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Wormser. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, you testified in some detail about a few 
particular books. You don't mean to leave any inference that your 
general opinions concerning what you call scientism relate only to 
those few books ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. This is a very widespread situation. It is con- 
tained in dozens and dozens of books. I cited those which I did cite 
only to illustrate the point. Many other books could be cited. But, 
of course, most of those other books, in fact, would have no connection 
with foundations. 

Mr. Wormser. Doctor, I hand you this morning an advertisement 
of Dr. Kinsey's second book. I think it is very important to illustrate 
the extent to which that book has resulted in a discussion of changes of 
law in the area of marriage and sex. 

Would you read the material on that ad and describe it? It ap- 
peared in the New York Times on May 11. 

Dr. Hobbs. This is an advertisement for the second volume in the 
Kinsey series, the volume on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. 
The advertisement reads : 

What do you care about sex laws? 



It goes on : 

Maybe you ought to think a little bit about our laws concerning sex and sex 

These laws are supposed to protect you ; they don't always do that, and they 
are sometimes turned against ordinary citizens like yourself. 

The Kinsey report cites instances of how and when and where. Shouldn't you 
read it? 

Mr. Wormser. Have you read the entire ad? 
Dr. Hobbs. Except the price of the book and the publisher. 
Mr. Wormser. Would the committee like to see the ad? I would 
like to offer it in evidence and you might wish to see it. 
The Chairman. Without objection it is so ordered. 
(The material referred to is as follows:) 

What do 
you care 
sex laws ? 

Maybe you ought to think a little bit about our 
laws concerning sex and sex offenders. 

These laws are supposed to protect you: they 
don't always do that, and they are sometimes 
turned against ordinary citizens like yourself. 

The Kinsey Report cites instances of how, 
and when, and where. Shouldn't you read it? 

842 pages, $8.00. At any bookseller, 
or send order with remittance to 

W. B. Saunders Company 

W. Washington Square, Philadelphia 5, Pa. 



Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, would you express your own opinion, 
please, as to whether the production of a book of this type, advertised 
in this manner, is a desirable activity of a foundation? 

Dr. Hobbs. I would say that they are encroaching, as in the instance 
of the encroachment in the military area, in areas in, in this case, 
legal areas, as well as moralistic areas, where they should be extremely 

I don't mean to imply that no investigation should be made, nor 
that the findings should be suppressed, or anything of that kind. But 
a great deal of caution should be used in connection with these extra- 
scientific areas, if you wish to call them such, and that degree of 
caution certainly has not been exercised. 

Mr. Wobmser. Dr. Hobbs, do I express your opinion correctly by 
this statement ? The foundations, or some of them, in the Cox hear- 
ings last year, maintained that the best use of their funds would be 
in experiment in reaching out for new horizons, in considering their 
precious funds in what they call risk capital. You would approve of 
experiment in the sense of trying to reach new horizons, but you would 
caution, I assume, against experiment as such where it relates to the 
relationship of human beings and basic factors in our society? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir; a great deal of caution, I think, should be 
applied in those areas. For one thing, because of the points I tried 
to establish yesterday, that the mere fact that the thing is being 
studied can change the situation ; and secondly, because the findings 
of a study can affect human behavior and we should be extremely 
cautious when we are entering into areas of that sort. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Wormser, would you go back to the question just 
immediately preceding this? Could we have the question read ? 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter as recorded 

Mr, Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, I would like you to extend your remarks 
somewhat on the subject of empiricism. The material has been used 
by witnesses several times. I would like you to discuss this aspect of 
empiricism; whether or not it is safe to be used in consideration of 
human problems by itself, or whether it must not always be related 
to any other pertinent material in the social sciences, such as basic 
moral codes and so forth ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I would feel very definitely that so-called empirical 
findings must be fitted into a framework of the legal precepts, the tra- 
ditions, the history, the moral codes, the military principles of the 
area in which they are applied. That in and of themselves, by their 
very nature, they exclude the intangibles which may be not only 
important but may be crucial in a final decision. 

Mr. Hats. Dr. Hobbs, right there, do you mean to imply that all the 
studies by foundations in this field of social science are empirical 
studies and that they have no relation or are not fitted in in any way, 
shape, or form with the other things you mentioned ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir ; I don't mean to imply that at all. There are 
studies fostered which are other than empirical. But it is my im- 
pression, and not only mine but the impression of quite a number of 
other professors with whom I correspond, that there is coming to be 
an overemphasis on what is called empiricism. Empiricism itself, of 
course, is a thoroughly acceptable technique of investigation. Like 


other techniques it has to be included within the overall framework 
of the scientific approach, but it is thoroughly respectable and desir- 
able as an approach in and of itself. 

Two things, however, seem to be occurring. One, that it is not 
really empiricism which is being sponsored. It is more nearly statis- 
tical manipulation without any real background of the numbers which 
are being manipulated. Those numbers usually represent people. 

Mr. Hats. Right there, I want to ask you about that before we 
go any further. 

The word "manipulate" usually has a connotation meaning that 
you decide what the answer is going to be first and then manipulate 
the figures. Do you mean to imply that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir ; I didn't mean to imply that at all. 

Mr. Hays. Maybe we ought to use some other term. 

Dr. Hobbs. Statistical computations if you wish. 

Mr. Hats. I think that means what you want to say and the other 
had a different meaning. 

Dr. Hobbs. I am very glad you mentioned that because I had abso- 
lutely no intent to imply that. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, these people decide what the answer is 
to be and then set out to make it come out that way ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I didn't mean that; no, sir. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, I would like your opinion and whatever 
discussion you can give us on the general influence that foundations 
have had on research in the colleges and universities. 

Dr. Hobbs. I don't think I could speak as to the overall general 
influence. I have made no separate study of that. But from my 
own experience, and as I indicated from the experience of others, 
some of whom are prominent within their respective fields, there are, 
myself included, and others, who are becoming increasingly concerned 
about what is or what seems to be — perhaps we are wrong in this — an 
overemphasis upon this so-called empiricism. Unfortunately, as I 
said before, it is a respectable and acceptable technique, but it is only 
one part of a very large pattern, if you want to approach a better 
understanding of human behavior. 

Particularly where large grants are involved, the grants tend to be 
geared into programs of "empiricism" — and I wish the word would 
be kept in quotes whenever it is used here — and then graduate students 
receive their training through these grants. I don't mean to imply 
in any sense that the foundations have organized their grants for this 
purpose, or that they are promoting intentionally and purposefully 
the type of thing I am going to describe. I merely wish to point it 
out as a situation which does arise and which I believe is quite unfor- 

These graduate students, who, of course, will be the researchers 
and the teachers of the future, are subjected by the very nature of 
the situation to enter in disproportionate numbers into this one small 
area, an important area, to be sure, but just one area of their training. 
They are encouraged through the situation to embark upon study 
projects which are extremely narrow, and with the aid of the grant, 
the persons running the research are able to employ professional 
interviewers, for example. One part of graduate training should be 
some acquaintance with people. The graduate student, I would feel, 


would gain much more if he were to do his own interviewing, rather 
than merely take the results which were collected by a professional 
interviewer. In failing to do his own interviewing, he has thereby 
lost an important element, I would say, of what should be his train- 

Furthermore, these projects aid these students to a disproportionate 
degree. Other students who, through differing interests, through a 
broader viewpoint of society and behavior, who do their own work 
and who don't have such assistance, are handicapped in comparison 
with the ones who receive the aid through foundation grants. 

So that there are cases where the graduate student in his training 
has concentrated in a very small area of the statistical computations — 
and I wish to add that in themselves there is nothing wrong with 
that, but they are a very small part of the overall picture — but in such 
training they neglect studies of the traditions of the country, the studies 
of the history of the country, they neglect actual experience with 
people, they neglect studies of the philosophies which have been devel- 
oped in connection with human civilization, and they even neglect — 
and this may sound extreme, but I can vouch that it does happen — 
they even neglect studies of science. 

One of my favorite questions when I am examining students for a 
graduate degree is a question of this sort. Here you are, you are going; 
to get a doctor of philosophy degree. What have you read in philos- 
ophy ? I appreciate that this sounds extreme, but there are graduate 
students who get such degrees who have never read a book in philos- 

Then another question along the same lines : What have you ever 
read in the philosophy of science; and some of them have read little 
or nothing in that area either. 

So you get this tendency to overspecialize, overconcentrate in one 
area which admittedly has its merits, but which leads to a narrowness 
of mind, not the broader outlook which we need in the present unde- 
veloped conditions associated with social science. 

Another aspect of this same situation is that graduate students and 
faculty members are discouraged from applying for grants unless 
they, too, are willing to do this type of "empirical" investigation. 

For example, this is a bulletin of the Social Science Research Coun- 
cil, an announcement of fellowships and grants to be offered in 1953. 
In this bulletin it states that fellowships and grants described in this 
circular are of two distinct types. One, those designed exclusively 
to further the training of research workers in social science. 

If I may interject to read : "Research worker" for a layman would 
have a broad general significance — research is desirable and so forth. 
But in the connotation in which it is all too frequently used, in social 
science, research means statistical computation. A social scientist 
reading this would interpret it to mean that probably, almost certainly,, 
what they are interested in is only statistical computations. 

The quotation on this first point goes on to say : 

These include the research training fellowships and the area research-training 
fellowships. These fellowships provide full maintenance. 

A second category listed : 

Those designed to aid scholars of established competence in the execution of 
their research, family, the travel grants for area research, grants in aid of 
research, and faculty research fellowships. 


Then in a description of the research-training fellowships there is 
the statement : 

These fellowships may be granted for programs that will afford either experi- 
ence in the conduct of research — 

and remembering here that the reader of this material knows or be- 
lieves they mean statistical computation — 

and first-hand analysis of empirical data under the guidance of mature investi- 
gators or further formal training or both. , 

Purposes for which grants-in-aid may be expended include wages of clerical and 
technical assistants, tabulating, photostating, microfilming and similar services, 
transportation, and living expenses of the grantee himself while traveling in pur- 
suit of his investigation. Grants are not ordinarily available for travel to pro- 
fessional society meetings or conferences or for purposes of books and manu- 
scripts. Grants will not be given to subsidize the preparation of textbooks or 
the publication of books or articles or to provide income in lieu of salary. 

Fellowships will be selected on the basis of their actual and prospective accom- 
plishments in formulating and testing hypotheses concerning social behavior by 
empirical and, if possible, quantitative methods. 

Now, I don't mean to imply that there is anything categorically 
wrong in such a statement, but I do wish to point out that it does tend 
in the direction of giving the people in the field the impression that 
unless research involves statistical computation, then they don't have 
much chance of getting a grant. Now, perhaps that impression is in- 
correct. It may well be incorrect. I just say that the impression does 
spread, so that if it does occur to you to ask for a grant to make a 
broader study of the history of the development of social science or 
something of that sort, then after having read such things you are 
likely to be discouraged. 

It may be your own fault. Perhaps if you had gone ahead and 
requested you would have obtained it. I am just saying that atmos- 
phere is created and I think the foundations themselves would regret 
that this is the situation and would probably be willing to do whatever 
they can to change that atmosphere to create one which everybody 
appreciates they are interested in, broader types of research instead 
of this particular empirical one. 

Mr. Wormser. Isn't the term "comptometer compulsion" used ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I have used it facetiously and unkindly to describe the 
extremes of this empirical research where comptometers and similar 
machines are substitutes for actual experience with people and actual 
study of the philosophy of science and the history of peoples and 
so on. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, in connection with one subject you dis- 
cussed, that the foundations support a type of research which you call 
scientism, which sometimes penetrates the political area, do you have 
any opinion that any of the foundations themselves encourage going 
into the political scene ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Certainly, that type of thing is indicated repeatedly 
throughout one of the books that I mentioned yesterday, in Stuart 
Chase's The Proper Study of Mankind. 

In addition here is a report of the Social Science Research Council, 
tinnual report, 1928-29, in which they have what I would consider to 
be quite an extreme statement, but perhaps there is some other expla- 
nation of it. They have a listing; of their history and purposes of the 
Social Science Research Council, and one of these purposes is that — 

a sounder empirical method of research had to be achieved in political science, 
if it were to assist in the development of a scientific political control. 


Mr. Wormser. Is that a quote ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is a direct quote from this annual report. 

Mr. Hats. Is that bad % 

Dr. Hobbs. It could be. The implications that you are going to 
control political — - 

Mr. Hats. They say "on a sounder." In other words, the inference 
is there that they recognize it is not very sound. 

Dr. Hobbs (reading) : 

A sounder empirical method of research to assist in the development of a 
scientific political control. 

If you are talking in terms of scientific political control, it would 
seem to me that you are going to hand over government to these 
social scientists. That seems to be the implication. 

Mr. Hats. Do you teach political science at all \ 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. 

Mr. Hays. I assume you have taken some courses in it? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Have you ever had any practical experience in politics ? 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say that I have a minor in political science from 
Ohio State and they have a very fine political science department 

But in the past few years in politics, I found out that it has very 
little relation if any to either science or politics. They do teach you 
a lot about government and Constitution and the government of the 
various other nations and the difference between our constitutional 
form of government and the British parliamentary form of govern- 
ment, for instance ; but ever since I can remember it has been called 
political science and that would be, I suppose, under some of the 
definitions we have used here, a very bad and misleading term. Yet 
it is one that is used all the time. 

Dr. Hobbs. So long as there is understanding that it is different 
from science as the term is used in connection with the physical 

In your training in political science you are apparently getting the 
type of broad background which I referred to earlier. I think that 
is desirable. Not only desirable, but essential. If, in your training, 
your teachers had been trained only in this empirical method, then 
your training in political science would have been predominantly, 
perhaps solely, studies of how to make opinion polls and the tech- 
niques of statistical computation and examination of the results and 
things along those empirical lines. 

Mr. Hats. Do you mean to say, then, Doctor, that there are uni- 
versities that are teaching their students in political science nothing 
but how to take polls, and so forth ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I do not. I say political science is not my field. My 
field is sociology. In sociology, there are, I am sorry to say, some 
institutions where there is a definite movement in that direction, and 
where this empirical type of thing has assumed a proportion which 
is way out of balance considering the general things that people 
should know about human behavior. 

Mr. Hays. I believe you have frankly said yesterday you didn't 
think that sociology was very much of a science. 


Dr. Hobbs. Not in the sense that the word is used with political 
science. That does not mean that it is of no value or anything like 

Mr. Hats. I didn't mean to imply that. I think it has great value. 
But it is a subject that you can't study and say, "this is it, these are 
the conclusions and they don't vary." 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Hays. It is something that you can only approximate. 

Dr. Hobbs. You get as much data as you can and you generalize 
about it, but you should always avoid giving the impression that this 
is the final scientific answer to any important area of human behavior. 
Always leave open the possibility of alternative explanations. 

Mr. Hats. Then, as I get it, your criticism broadly has been that 
there is a tendency among these empiricists, if we can use that term, 
to try to tie this down as a definite thing and say these are the answers 
and there are no variables ? 

Dr. Hobbs. There is, I would say, a definite and in my opinion an 
unfortunate tendency in that direction, to the degree that it has over- 
balanced and overshadowed a more nearly rounded study of human 
behavior and societies. 

Mr. Hats. You don't think there is anything that the Congress can 
do about that except bring it to the attention of the people. 

Dr. Hobbs. Of the foundations, and I would guess they would be 
probably not only willing but anxious to do what they could to modify 
this and avoid it. 

Mr. Wormser. Dr. Hobbs, there is one other subject I wish you 
would discuss, please, in your own way, and that is what is called 
moral relativity — the tendency of this inaccurate or unbalanced type 
of research to have perhaps an undermining effect on moral standards. 

Dr. Hobbs. In this type of empirical approach, by definition you 
must attempt to reduce the things you are studying to the type of 
units which I indicated yesterday, to quantitative units, which are 
measurable. By the very nature of the approach^ therefore, you 
exclude intangibles, such as sentiments, love, romance, devotion, or 
other tangibles, such as patriotism, honesty, and things of that type. 

So if it is strictly empirical, then the behavior involved is reduced 
to cold quantitative items which are important, perhaps, but which 
if presented alone give a very distorted picture of love or sex or 
patriotism or whatever else the topic may be. 

Mr. Wormser. Is it analogous, perhaps, to use a syllogism without 
including all the premises? The missing premises being moral codes 
and basic principles of government and so forth. 

Dr. Hobbs. It would be analogous to that. I would say that in the 
context of the scientific method it is using just one of the elements 
instead of including all of the elements which should be involved. 
That is unfortunate. 

Mr. Wormser. Unless the committee has further question, I would 
like Dr. Hobbs to conclude in whatever way he wishes, himself, if he 
has any further material to offer. 

Mr. Hats. Before we go any further, how many questions I will 
have depends on whether on not somebody is going to be brought in 
by the staff to present the other point of view. Because I am confidant 
that there must be another point of view. If we are going to be objec- 
tive, I would like to hear from somebody on the other side. 


I might have just as many pointed questions to ask him as I have 
to ask Dr. Hobbs. If we are not going to bring anybody in, then I 
am going to try to develop the other side right here so we can bo 

Mr. Wormser. I can answer that by saying that we will certainly 
ask the Social Science Research Council to appear and I would assume- 
that they would present the other side of the case. 

Mr. Hats. You say you are going to ask the Social Science Research 
Council ; that is a kind^of intangible body, isn't it ? 

Mr. Wormser. If you wish to designate its representative, we will 
call him. 

Mr. Hats. I don't know anybody in the Social Science Research 
Council any more than I didn't know Dr. Hobbs until now. 

The Chairman. You have in mind calling someone who is a rep- 
resentative of the official body of the research council ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. I would normally call the president. If tha 
committee would prefer to have someone else called, I would do it. 

The Chairman. Someone from their own section? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes, I told them that. 

The Chairman. Likewise, in due time the representatives of the- 
foundations, I assume, of various foundations, will also be called ? 

Mr. Wormser. Yes. 

The Chairman. So there is certainly no predisposition to have only 
one viewpoint presented. 

Mr. Hays. Are we planning to call in the representatives of these- 
foundations or invite them in % 

Mr. Koch. I would think we would ask them first whether they 
would want to present their case. If none of them did, and I would 
rather doubt that, then I suppose we would have to get someone to 
present the other side ourselves. I would guess that the foundations 
would be only too anxious to present their best spokesmen. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, may I amplify that by saying that I have 
had conferences with the attorneys, I think, for most of the major 
foundations, and in each case have told them that while we might ask. 
an individual from the foundation, including the Social Science Re- 
search Council, to appear for a particular piece of testimony, that we- 
had no objection whatsoever to their designating their own representa- 
tive to testify. 

Mr. Hats. The reason for that question is simply this : At dinner 
last night with some friends of mine, one of whom spent an hour or two- 
in the hearing yesterday, the subject came up about this, and this 
gentleman said, "I understand that up to now the foundations think 
that this has been so insignificant that they are just going to ignore 
it altogether." If they take that attitude, then I suppose we will 
only get one side of it. 

Mr. Koch. Mr. Hays, can we leave it this way: If they elect to 
ignore, we can then perhaps recall Professor Hobbs and you can cross- 
examine him at that time. 

Mr. Hats. That would be all right. I do have some questions to 
ask him. But I don't want to go into a lengthy day or two on it. 

Mr. Wormser. You don't want to ask them now ? 

Mr. Hats. Yes, I sure do. 

Mr. Wormser. If you want to, ask them now by all means. I am 
sure Dr. Hobbs would be glad to come back on reasonable notice. 

49720—54 — pt. 1 12 


Mr. Hays. I think the time to ask questions is now. 

The Chairman. That was the purpose and intention of having this 
session this morning. If you will bear with me for a moment, I might 
review what I said at the opening of the hearing in connection with 
the method of presentation : That the committee staff was making a 
presentation and then others would be called in who were representa- 
tive of the other viewpoint, and also the foundations themselves would 
be invited to come. 

So far as my own feeling is concerned — I have discussed this with 
counsel — I would say it is not altogether within the discretion of the 
foundations to decide whether they should or should not come, because 
we have only one thing in mind, and that is a complete, objective, 
and thorough study. 

Mr. Hays. I understand that anybody can be subpenaed. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. I didn't want to prevent you, Doctor, from making a 
final statement. 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. I had completed the things that I wanted to 
take up. 

Mr. Hays. You have completed your statement? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. One of the things I would like to ask you — of course, 
understand in the very begining that I don't care what your answers 
are, I only want your opinion because I am interested since you have 
given your opinion on a variety of things, and I would like to have 
it on some that we have not touched upon so we get a well-rounded and 
balanced picture — and one of the things I would like to ask you is this : 
In Mr. Dodd's opening statement he said one of the things — and I 
am not quoting exactly, but he left a very definite impression — that 
one of the things wrong with foundations, and I will quote, is : "That 
they are willing to support experiments in fields that defy control." 

Do you think that is a fault ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Assuming that that was the substance of his state- 

Mr. Hays. I am quoting exactly, "That they have been willing to 
support experiments in fields that defy control." 

Dr. Hobbs. It is true that in any study of the significant aspects 
of human behavior, such as criminality, juvenile delinquency, political 
behavior, the studies are such that they defy control, in the sense that 
there are intangibles involved which, no matter how conscientious you 
are in making the study, these intangibles still remain. 

The word "control" in scientific investigation means that you are 
able to control, to measure the significant variables, and that no other 
variables can come into the investigation to significantly influence 
the results. 

That is not the case with studies of human behavior. 

Mr. Hays. That is right. But any field, unless it is completely 
comprehended — and I don't know that there is any such field — and any 
research into the unknown would probably defy control, would it not? 

Dr. Hobbs. But there is a difference in the usage of the term. A 
physicist can make a study which is a complete controlled study. His 
study may be one which involves the weight of matter. He may and 
can create conditions under which he has to all intents and purposes 


complete control over" the conditions of his experiment. You cannot 
do that in social science, unfortunately. 

Mr. Hays. It is probably unfortunate. All right, we will agree 
with that. But you would not suggest that we just abandon all experi- 
ment because we can't control ? 

Dr. Hobbs. By no means. 

Mr. Hats. I don't want to ask you any leading questions, but would 
you or would you not suggest that the foundations just refuse to make 
any grants in that field because it does defy control % 

Dr.- Hobbs. If that were the case, then they would have to go out 
of business so far as the social sciences are concerned. I think that 
would be undesirable, that grants should be made and efforts should 
be made in all directions, but I do think there should be more of a 
balance than there is at present. 

Of course, when these things are done, then the results should be 
stated in very heavily qualified terms, particularly if the title "science" 
is applied to the investigation. 

Mr. Hays. Then to sum up the main part of your criticism — and I 
am trying now only to find out if I am right in my thinking — you 
object mainly to the use of the term "science" in connection with these 
things that are not exact because it is a misleading term. 

Dr. Hobbs. Extremely misleading. The people in general, I believe, 
when they hear the word "science" think in terms of the physical 
sciences which have been so tremendously successful. It is unfor- 
tunate, therefore, that when they hear social science or read that this 
is a scientific study of delinquency or a scientific study of sexual 
behavior, they are given the impression that this is the final defini- 
tive word, that there is no alternative possibility, that the condition 
in short is the same as it would be with an investigation in physical 

Mr. Hays. Doctor, do you think it is possible to have a scientific 
study of delinquency? 

Dr. Hobbs. Again in the sense that you have scientific studies of 
matter and energy, the answer would have to be "No." There have 
been some efforts — and I would say very commendable efforts — made 
to increase the degree of control involved in the study. That is by 
conducting studies such as the one made by, for example, Sheldon 
and Eleanor Glueck. 

In their studies of delinquency they attempted to reduce the vari- 
ables by going to slum areas and picking 500 boys who were delin- 
quents and serious delinquents. They were not just one-time offenders 
or incidental mischievous children, they were serious delinquents; 
and then from the same slum area they picked out another 500 boys 
who were not delinquents. 

Already they have exerted some element of control over one of the 
possible variables, that is, the environmental conditions, the slum 
conditions. All of the boys came from slum areas. 

Then, further, they matched the delinquent boys with the other 
500 boys as for age, as for their school record, as for their I. Q,., as 
for their nationality background, the income of their parents, and in 
this manner they attempted to reduce the number of variables in- 
volved in the situation to arrive at what would be called a controlled 
study to the degree that you can call studies in social science con- 


I would say that type of effort is extremely desirable. 

Incidentally, the findings of that study upset all. of the other beliefs 
that had been held on the basis of earlier studies which were made 
and which were empirical about delinquency. 

Mr. Hays. Of course, that is the way down through the ages. We 
have found out what little we know about things, that is, by trial 
and error more or less. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes. As long as we understand that it is trial and error, 
then that is, of course, perfectly acceptable. But when we are given 
the impression that this is science, and final and definitive, irrefu- 
table, unchallengeable, that is another situation. 

Mr. Hats. Do you think there is a possibility about your fears 
that this is so firmly imbedded in the minds of the public might 
be exaggerated? 

Dr. Hobbs. Sir, it is not a fear. It is a concern. 

Mr. Hats. I won't quibble with you about adjectives or verbs or 

Mr. Hats. Do you think there is a possibility that your fears 
or concern, you use your own terminology, but do you think there 
is a possibility that you are more concerned about it than maybe is 
necessary ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is always possible. 

Mr. Hats. To go back to your book that you cited yesterday, this 
book by Stuart Chase. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. What was the title of that again ? 

Dr. Hobbs. "The Proper Study of Mankind." 

Mr. Hats. It is not a very appealing title. 

Dr. Hobbs. The title is taken from a poem by Alexander Pope. 

Mr. Hays, You seemed to indicate to me that this book, The Proper 
Study of Mankind, had exerted a rather undesirable influence. Am I 
right in assuming that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. As to the influence of the study, of course, there is no 
way of measuring that. You cannot tell when someone reads a book 
the degree to which they have been influenced by it. I cited it as an 
illustration wherein foundations had encouraged and promoted the 
impression that social science is identical or virtually identical with 
physical science. 

Mr. Hays. The thing that I am a little concerned about is that I 
don't think very many people have read that book and if that is so, I 
dont' think it could exert much influence one way or another. I have 
been toying with this every since yesterday. I have a 15-minute tele- 
vision show every Saturday night in my district and it covers parts 
of three States. If there was some way. to advertise that I was going 
to offer a prize and be sure the thing would not be loaded, I would 
like to offer $50 to the first person who called in and told me that they 
read that book in those three States. I don't know how many people 
listen to it, but I am sure if we put it in the papers at $50 I would get 
a good-sized audience. Maybe no one watches it, I don't know. 

The Chairman. It depends on how much time you give them, 

Mr. Hays. I don't want to sell the book. I would have to give them 
them a time limit. 

The point I am making, and I don't come from exactly an illiterate 
part or the country — Pittsburgh and Wheeling and Steuben ville and 
Youngstown and other cities in Ohio — is that I would be almost will- 


ing to gamble that I couldn't find anybody there who read that book. 

Dr. Hobbs. That, of course, would be a biased sampling which was 

Mr, Hats. Would that be empirical ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I suggest, sir, if you are concerned and think this is an 
important point that some of the staff might write to the publishers 
and perhaps they would release the sales figures. 

Mr. Hats. We have already made that request of the staff and they 
will get that. The thing was belabored pretty extensively yesterday, 
I thought, and I just wondered if it was not given an importance out 
of all comparison with what it deserves. 

Mr. Wokmser. Mr. Hays, may I ask in that same question : Do you 
suppose, Dr. Hobbs, that it has been widely read among academic 
■circles where its influence might be great ? 

Dr. Hobbs. From my own experience I know that it was widely 
read. I would judge that it was generally widely read in academic 
circles where, of course, that would be the crucial point — how much 
young and naive scholars were influenced by this point of view. 

Mr. Woemser. I think Mr. Hays would agree that they were prob- 
ably reading it in the libraries rather than buying copies. 

Dr. Hobbs. You might check that also. 

Mr. Hats. I am embarrassed to bring this up but I have been won- 
dering after the last campaign whether they had much influence any- 
way. You know there was ridicule, and they developed a term called 
eggheads which I deplored, and an anti-intellectual thing. If vou 
showed any interest you were immediately labeled with there being 
something a little queer about you. In fact they almost sold the 
slogan so well they had some people afraid to admit that they even 
knew a college professor rather than listen to one. 

The Chairman. I assume you are not familiar with the origin of 
the eggheads? 

Mr. Hats. I don't know which one of the hucksters came up with it, 
first, but I imagine it was the same one that came up with the slogan 
"dynamic foreign policy." I could mention some more. 

Doctor Hobbs, you have expressed various criticisms of social sci- 
ence and I am sure you are far more of an expert in that field than I am. 
I find it a little hard to make a judgment on what you said. I certainly 
respect your opinions in view of your academic background, but I 
would like to try to tie down a little of this if I can. 

Do you feel that the Congress has any business in trying to pass 
judgment on the questions of scientific method and the validity of 
scientific work? 

Dr. Hobbs. Generally, I would say no. I can't conceive of a situa- 
tion at the moment or on the spot where that would be desirable. 

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Hats. Sure. 

The Chairman. I feel myself that Congress should not. 

My general concern with this question and related questions is that 
Congress or the Government through the funds which it has made 
available to the foundations by relieving them of payment of taxes, 
not be used to do the same thing that Congress would not do, and that 
it would not be proper for Congress to do. 

Mr. Hats. Doctor, in view of your last statement, I suppose this 
question is almost superfluous, but to get it in the record I will ask you. 


Do you think that there is some action Congress should take, or some 
control it should impose, to redirect the work of social scientists which 
you think is not good in some cases ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I don't want to give the impression that they are not 
good in that sense, but I did try to emphasize in a number of instances, 
and I think they have been important ones, they have encroached 
and they have encouraged encroachment into areas where, in the pres- 
ent state of the development of the social sciences, they should not 
encroach except with many, many qualifications as to their findings. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, then, the main thing is that you say go 
ahead and make these experiments, but qualify your findings so no- 
body can misunderstand them ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Hats. That might be a little tough. But at least so they won't 
get the wrong impression about them. 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Hays. To get back to the question, Do you feel that Congress 
should take some specific action about this, or that we should just let 
these hearings perhaps stand as a sort of danger signal? 

Dr. Hobbs. My feeling would be that ideally the foundations should,, 
with the advice and with the information coming out of hearings like 
this, that they themselves should take the initiative to determine if 
there are excesses in one direction or another and to try, I would say 
more than they have in the past, to keep things in balance and not 
to go overweight in one direction, such as empiricism ; that they should 
try themselves to keep a better balance than they seem to have done in 
the past and at present.. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, you think then that any policing that is 
done should be done by the foundations themselves, and not by the 
Congress ? 

Dr. Hobbs. If it is a matter of policing, I would say yes. Of course, 
when you get excesses and if there is a definite effort to influence laws, 
such as has been indicated, then I think properly Members of Con- 
gress, to whom this prerogative is delegated, should be somewhat 

Mr, Hays. But you don't have any specific recommendations to 
make at this moment about any laws that we should pass ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am not a legislator, sir. I would not ; no. 

Mr. Hays. I realize that, and I didn't want to put you on the 
spot. But the usual idea, when you have a congressional investigation, 
the ultimate thing, if it comes to any conclusion at all that anything 
is wrong, is that there should be some remedial action taken. 

You have indicated, at least, that you think there are some things 
that are wrong but you don't think that they are so badly wrong 
that Congress ought to pass a law about it. 

^ Dr. Hobbs. I certainly think a great deal of thought should be 
given. I can't conceive, as I indicated before, how such a law could 
be drawn up without restricting investigation in some area or other. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, stifling further education and research ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. That is exactly what I am afraid of. 

Dr. Hobbs. I think that would be undesirable. 

Mrs. Pfost. I would like to ask, Dr. Hobbs, do you think it would 
be proper or don't you think it would, that this committee call other 


witnesses of a different point of view from yours in order to get a 
fuller picture of these issues? 

Dr. Hobbs. Absolutely. 

Mrs. Pfost. Also, I would like to ask you, Dr. Hobbs, do you think 
any of this tax-free money is being channeled into needless projects? 

Dr. Hobbs. You want my opinion ? 

Mrs. Pfost. Yes. 

Dr. Hobbs. Absolutely. 

Mrs. Pfost. If I understand you correctly, a little while ago, you 
made the statement that you felt that the foundations should direct 
their studies in a more diversified field. How do you feel that they 
could better balance — how, can they set about better balancing their 
field of study ? 

Dr. Hobbs. As I indicated, there is, or at least at present there seems 

to be to me and to other academic people, this atmosphere that 
the foundations are primarily interested only in this empirical ap- 
proach. They, on their own initiative, could make efforts to dispel 
that atmosphere and to correct it, if it is erroneous, or to correct the 
situation if it does exist, through their circulars and advertising and 
through letters which are sent to universities, emphasizing that they 
are interested in all types of approaches. 

Mrs. Pfost. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hays. Dr. Hobbs, yesterday you talked at considerable length 
about the influence of certain social scientists — is that the term you 
used — on the Army ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Social scientists. 

Mr. Hats. I made the point yesterday I thought, and I don't wish 
to put a mantle around my shoulders and say I am a prophet, but 
I pointed out yesterday that whatever else you said. Dr. Kinsey 
would get top billing. That seems to have been the case in a few press 
notices I read this morning. 

But to me the most important charge you made, or the most serious 
one, I will put it that way, is the charge you made — that the social 
scientists had more or less tampered with the workings of the Army 
to the detriment of the country. 

Dr. Hobbs. I did not make that in the form of a charge. I made 
statements from the books themselves and did indicate in making those 
statements that this apparently, from the evidence, was a definite con- 
flict between military policy on the part of the Army and social-science 
approach on the part of the social scientists involved. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say here that I don't want to put words in your 
mouth. If you didn't make a charge against the Army, I don't want 
to imply that you did. 

Dr. Hobbs. I did emphasize that there was a conflict ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. But the impression was very definitely left with me that 
it was in the nature rather of a charge or indictment or whatever you 
want to call it. At least it seemed to me to be rather serious. Just ex- 
actly what did you mean to imply ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I meant to imply that here was a situation involving an 
extremely important military principle. That within this situation 
there was a conflict. On the one hand you had the military, on the 
other hand the social scientists. This they admit repeatedly through- 
out their work. 


The social scientists continued to insist that their method of han- 
dling this important principle be used instead of methods which were 
advocated by the military. They succeeded in doing this, resulting in 
the point system of discharge, a discharge which, according to the mili- 
tary side, was undesirable. 

Mr. Hays. Doctor, you say there that on the one side was the Army 
and on the other side was social science. That is two sides. 

How many sides does this thing have ? To me it must have at least 
one more. Maybe it was a triangle, I don't know, but there is a side 
that it seems to me on which there were millions of people in this 
country and the way you define it, if there were only two sides then 
they were not on the side of the Army as you speak of the word. 

By the Army I assume is meant what is commonly called around 
here the "high brass," or the people who run it. 

Dr. Hobbs. That expression ' f there were two sides" is from the book 

Mr. Hats. Wouldn't you say that in addition to the social' scien- 
tists, there were about 6 million soldiers — maybe the figure is too 
high — maybe only 5 million wanted to be discharged, I don't know. 
But at the time it seemed to me like they all did. If there were 6 
million soldiers there were probably 12 million fathers and mothers 
more or less and I don't know how many million sisters and brothers 
and other relatives, but I distinctly remember they were all on that 
side, too. 

Do you agree or not ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is probably true, but if military policy is to be 
based on the wishes of the individual members of the military service, 
then you are going to have a very, very interesting sort of Army, Navy, 
Air Force and Marine Corps. 

Mr. Hats. I agree with you. Probably more interesting than we 
have ever had. But in a democracy how else would you have the Army 
directed ? Are you going to set it up a little sacrosanct outfit which 
does whatever it pleases without regard to the wishes of the people ? If 
you do that you don't have a democracy, do you ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. But within a military organization by 
definition you do not have democracy. It is necessary to have ranks 
within a military organization. It is necessary definitely to delegate 
responsibility and authority. 

Mr. Hats. As I understand it, the decision had been made that we 
are going to have to demobilize some of these men. We can't keep 
them all. It is not necessary to keep them all. We can't afford to 
keep them all. The public won't stand for us to keep them all. All 
of those factors entered in. 

Do I understand you to say that it is bad to ask these men, we are 
going to demobilize part of you, would you want to give us your 
opinion of how you would like to have it done? Do you think that 
is bad per se ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I made the point, or tried to delineate the differences or 
some of the differences between physical science and social science, 
that one of the differences was that the very fact that you attempt 
to make a study may influence the attitudes, the opinions, the behavior 
of the persons who are involved in it. 

In this particular situation, there is the possibility — and I would 
say the likelihood — that when members of the military service are 


given the impression, which they are likely to be given through 
opinion surveys, and which you remember the Secretary of War 
warned against, when they are given the impression that they are to 
have the decision about important matters of strategy and military 

?olicy, then there is always the possibility that you create disaffection, 
would say that is a real possibility. It could have turned out that 
the technique accepted and used was desirable. That could have 

As it did turn out in the perspective oi history, it was, let us say, 
at least questionable from a military point of view. 

Mr. Hays. Don't say "let us say." You say it. 

Dr. Hobbs. I would say it was definitely questionable. 

Mr. Hats. That is your opinion? 

Dr. Hobbs. It is my opinion. 

Mr. Hays. Yes. That is a very interesting thing, and I am just 
curious to know how would you have gone about demobilizing these 
people if you didn't use the point system, if you personally had the 
decision to make? 

Dr. Hobbs. If I had the decision to make — you want to make me 
Secretary of War for the moment? 

Mr. Hays. I will want to make you anything you want. You made 
yourself something in criticizing it. So take the same title and tell 
us what you would have done in place of what you say was wrong. 

Dr. Hobbs. In the situation which apparently existed the military 
did know or feel that there was good reason for not disbanding the 
combat veterans, for maintaining intact, efficient, effective combat 

The social scientist on the other hand did not feel that same way. . 

I suspect, without knowing, from reading it, that the military was 
worried and concerned about possible Kussian encroachment in 
Europe, a condition which did eventuate. The social scientist was 
concerned only with his small area and did not know of that pos- 
sibility. By the very nature of the study, you see, it was something 
that they could not include. That is the type of hazard that you 

I don't mean to imply that these men were stupid, evil, or vicious 
or anything of that kind; they are very capable men, all of them. 
Technically the studies were very good. My main point which I tried 
to stress is that when you enter an area and use the weight and prestige 
of social science you are encountering possible hazards — in this case, 
military hazards. 

Mr. Hays. Doctor, they used a similar system in Korea right at 
the time the fighting was going on, didn't they? They called it a 
rotation system. They were constantly pulling men out of units and 
putting them back and replacing them with other men. 

I want to say very frankly I certainly recognize your right to your 
opinion, but I don't see anything bad in bringing a man back home 
who has risked his life repeatedly and let someone else assume that 
gamble for a little while because if the combat veterans stay indefi- 
nitely, it seems to me you have a chance of upsetting their morale, 
because they will say, "Well, we have two alternatives — one of them 
is that we stay here and get killed eventually and the other one is 
that we stay here and get killed tomorrow." 


Dr. Hobbs. That, of course, was not the issue. The issue was 
whether the military forces should be maintained intact or at least 
in sufficient strength so that they could combat a possible military move 
on the part of some potential enemy, in this case, of course, Russia. 

Mr. Hays. I don't think the decision to keep them intact or not 
to keep them intact — I insist — was made by any group of social 
scientists. It was made right here about a block away, under the 

Br. Hobbs. As I pointed out in citing from the book, there was the 
point that the military did desire to keep the units intact. The social 
scientists did not. 

Mr. Hays. Would you agree with that statement? The military, 
especially from the rank of lieutenant colonel on up, would desire to 
keep them intact forevermore? I never found a colonel or lieutenant 
colonel or a general who thought that the country was not in imminent 
danger of destruction if you let one out. Whether or not it has 
anything to do with the fact that you have to have so many thousand 
men to have so many dozen colonels, I don't know. But that is the 
attitude they seem to take. 

Dr. Hobbs. I have had some experience with the military, also. 
In my experience, I found the people — of course, military life is their 
specialty and career — they are concerned with it much more than 
nonprofessional military personnel. I did not find in my experience 
the degree of dogmatic affirmation that we will maintain armies at 
the largest size, we will maintain navies at their fullest strength, 
regardless and in complete disregard of any military threat, imagi- 
nary or real, and regardless of the interests of the entire country. I 
do not find that in my experience. 

Mr. Hays. I overemphasized the thing perhaps and exaggerated. 
I am sure that you did not find that the case. 

Will you agree that 99 percent of the time whenever there is a cut 
suggested that you immediately ran into resistance in the high com- 
mand? That is a perfectly normal human tendency. I am not 
saying they are awful people. 

Dr. Hobbs. On the part of all of us when it comes to things we are 
interested in and seriously concerned with, of course that is very true. 

Mr. Hays. I have found that with social workers. 

Dr. Hobbs. Of course, sir, it was true also of the social scientists 
who were so concerned with their methods and techniques that they, 
too, overworked the military side of the situation. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, two little empires there kind of clashed 
head on ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is right. 

Mr. Hays. And one wanted this and the other wanted something 
else. That is an interesting thing that you brought up, and I thought 
it was worthy of some development. 

I again want you to repeat what I understood you to say, that you 
don't think there was any bad or deliberate plot on their part to 
destroy the Army. 

Dr. Hobs. I have absolutely no knowledge, I read nothing to that 
effect, I didn't mean to imply it. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, they thought this is the way it should 
be done and they were firm in their belief and they pressed forward 
with it. 


Dr. Hobbs. That is right. 

Mr. Hays. That puts a somewhat different light on the matter. 

I have 1 or 2 other questions, Doctor, and then I will be through. 

Someone once made the statement — and I can't quote who it was — 
that the scholar who has never made a mistake has never made a 
discovery or a correction. Would you be inclined to agree with that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Then going back to this business of having controls over 
research, research that is valuable is going to occasionally stray off 
into fields where it is going to make mistaken conclusions and mis- 
taken decisions and so on and so forth, would you agree that is true ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. Do you have any specific suggestion as to how these 
foundations might prevent more than a minimum number of mistakes? 
I mean do you have any suggestion as to how they should tighten up 
their grant-giving machinery ? You are more familiar with founda- 
tions than L We have admitted that they are going to make some 
mistakes. That is almost inevitable, is it not ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hats. The desirable thing would be to keep those mistakes to 
a minimum. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. I ask this very kindly. I am only trying to get some 
light on the subject. Do you have any suggestion ? 

Dr. Hobbs. One suggestion I made before would be that they em- 
phasize that they do not wish to concentrate research and studies 
within the empirical area to a disproportionate degree and to thereby 
exclude or seriously minimize other important areas of study. 

Another suggestion would be that they be much more careful than 
they have been in the past in encroaching on large and significant 
areas of human behavior, such as the military area where you can say 
it is all right to make a mistake, but with high military policy perhaps 
one mistake is the only chance you get. It may be your last mistake. 

In this area any findings which are arrived at should be presented 
very tentatively and with many, many reservations and qualifications 
and not pushed to the degree which the findings in connection with 
the point system of discharge were apparently pushed from reading 
the book. 

Mr. Hats. You say a mistake in a military decision might be your 
last mistake. Did I understand you to say that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. It could be in a military situation. 

Mr. Hats. Whether it came about as a result of an empirical study 
or just somebody's decision, that' could be true ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Hats. So if we make a mistake about the ultimate decision on 
what we do in Southeast Asia, while it might not necessarily be our last 
mistake, it might be our next to the last ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That is correct. 

Mr. Hays. So we are getting right back, as I see it, to the funda- 
mental conclusion that I think we are going to have to arrive at, and 
that is, that human beings are susceptible to mistakes and in the situ- 
ation we are now we better not make too many. 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir, but with this additional factor: That when 
your decision is based on studies which are purportedly scientific, then 


your results are no longer regarded as the results of an individual, 
but are regarded as the results of a method which many people have 
the impression is infallible. So you create quite a different situation 
from the necessary and desirable difference of opinion between indi- 
viduals or between members of the military and civilians, where the 
differences can be weighed and ironed out on their own level of merit. 
You don't have the injection of this factor which seems to be the final 
and decisive ultimate factor. I think that is a significant difference. 

Mr. Hays. I think you and I are in complete agreement on that 
point. In other words, you don't like an attempt to wrap a cloak of 
infallibility around them and say this is it. 

Dr. Hobbs. Exactly. 

Mr. Hays. That is a tendency not only of social science, and I am 
being strictly nonpolitical when I say this, that has been the tendency 
of recent Secretaries of State we have had, too. They sort of put 
a mantle of infallibility on and say whatever decision I come to is right 
and this is it, and I don't want you to question it. That is a short- 
coming that is confined not only to social scientists. 

Dr. Hobbs. No, sir. But you always have the factor of the prestige 
of science involved. You can argue about a decision of a Secretary of 
State on political bases, on bases of knowledge of history, on bases of 
knowledge of the foreign situation, and on many grounds you can 
justifiably argue a decision of that type. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Wormser, there is a question you asked there that 
I thought ought to be developed a little more and I don't recall, since 
I don't have the transcript here, the exact wording of it. It had to do 
with the foundations going into political fields. You asked it early 
in the testimony. 

Mr. Wormser. You mean today ? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. Do you have a list of the questions you asked 
there ? 

The Chairman. While he is thinking about that, may I ask one 
question with reference to your suggestion? 

With reference to these suggestions that the foundations might 
follow to improve the situation, do you feel that any of the founda- 
tions have exercised sufficient care in selecting the key personnel, or if 
the boards of trustees have exercised sufficient care and responsibility 
in considering the recommendations of the personnel of the staffs? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am afraid that I wouldn't be qualified to give an 
opinion on that. I have made no separate study of foundations and 
their personnel. I just wouldn't know. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, I don't recall the exact question, but I 
think what you are referring to was this : I had in my mind that there 
is some evidence that foundations have to some extent consciously 
determined to enter the political field in this sense: That social 
scientists should be assigned the job, let us say, of directing society 
and of telling us what is best for us. I asked some question which 
related to that, bringing out the political field itself. I think Dr. 
Hobbs then quoted something from the report of the Social Science 
Research Council. 

Is that what you mean? 

Mr. Hays. Yes, I think that had to do with it. Maybe we can 
develop what I was thinking about without having the exact language. 
I thought if you had it there it would be helpful. 


Do you think the foundations have gone into the realm of politics 
to any great extent ? 

Br. Hobbs. That would be difficult to determine. Political influ- 
ence, as you know much, much better than I, involves many, many 
intangibles as to what does influence people politically one way or 
another. Have some of the findings influenced political attitudes? 
I would say that is likely. But again, to measure it and to say exactly 
how much and precisely in what direction, I would be at a loss to say. 

Mr. Hats. Do you think they have gone into it in any significant 
way or to any great extent ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Certainly not directly. That is, not in any sense of a 
lobby or anything of that type, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hats. If they have gone in at all, then, with the exception 
of perhaps some who sponsor radio programs and political figures, 
they have gone into it in a rather subtle way ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That could be the case. I don't know the specific situa- 
tion which you refer to. I have never heard that program. I don't 

Mr. Hats. I don't want to show here that I am accusing them — and 
we are speaking now, of course, of Facts Forum— of anything, but 
I have had a lot of complaints about them, especially even prior to the 
time of these hearings, and a great volume of letters since then. 

To be perfectly fair I have had a few which say they are all right. 
So all I am interested in with regard to that particular organization 
is finding out whether they are biased or whether they are not. I 
want to make it clear here, which apparently it has not been in some 
people's minds, that if they are biased, they still have a perfect right 
to go on the air ; but they don't have any right to go on with tax-exempt 

Dr. Hobbs. I would agree with that. 

Mr. Hats. They have a right to their opinion, certainly. They 
can be just as biased as they want to as long as they are using their 
own money without any tax exemption. 

Mr. Koch. Mr. Hays, I am glad you brought up that point. You 
mentioned earlier this morning that one of the principal purposes of 
a committee such as this is to find out whether legislation might be 
necessary or whether present legislation should be amended. 

I think after the representative of the Internal Revenue Depart- 
ment testifies, I think, next week, you will find that his department has 
difficulty in determining just what is propaganda and what is designed 
to influence legislation. We hope to present to the committee samples 
of various types of propaganda, including Facts Forum, and various 
types of efforts to influence legislation, and maybe at the end of these 
hearings we can define this a little bit better for the aid of the tax 

Mr. Hats. I would say to you, that I am sure that it must be a very 
difficult proposition. I am sure it must be just as difficult as there 
are points of view. When you use the word "propaganda" — and 
I think we ought to make that definitive here — the word "propaganda" 
itself has come to have a sort of undesirable connotation. 

In the strict sense it can be good propaganda as well as bad. I 
suppose whether it is good or bad depends on your point of view and 
whether or not you agree with it. That would be somewhat of a 
determining factor. 


Mr. Koch. But we shall try to define it a little more clearly because 
some of the types of propaganda will shock us. If we can define it 
better the tax department will have an easier time. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, I can now give you your statistic that 
you ask for. Roughly 50,000 copies of Stuart Chase's book have been 
sold, which happens to be more than the aggregate sales of the 8 books 
which I have written. 

Mr. Hays. All I can say is that if he sold 50,000 copies with that 
title, if he jazzed up the title a little he could have probably sold 
half a million. Whoever merchandised that book did not do a 
good job. 

Mr. Koch. I would like to have Mr. Wormser give us the names of 
bis eight books. 

Mr. Hays. I think we ought to get a plug in for him and mention 
one from memory, Estate Planning in a Changing World. 

Mr. Wormser. That is right. 

Mr. Hays. I found it a little heavy going but it is perhaps because 
I don't have an estate to worry about. 

The Chairman. Since I quoted it in one of my speeches I should 
also mention his most recent book the Myth of Good and Bad Nations. 

Mr. Hays. I hope I will have the time to read it before this hear- 
ing is over. 

I have just one more question which may lead into some sub- 
ciuestions. I have a letter here from a man — I don't suppose he would 
care if I identified him, but there is no reason to bring him in. It 
is a rather kind letter with several points of view. He makes a 
challenging statement here and I would like to hear your comment. 

He says, "Man's greatest problem today is man himself." Would 
you agree with that ? 

Dr. Hobbs. Could I answer that a little indirectly ? 

Mr. Hays. In any way you wish. 

Dr. Hobbs. I was going to lunch some time ago with a colleague 
and he asked me, "What do you think the Negro really wants?" I 
asked him, "What do you really want for lunch?" He said "I am 
not sure, I don't know." I said, "You don't even know what you 
want for lunch and you ask me to tell you what the Negro really 

I don't know what man's greatest problem is. Also, I don't know 
what I want for lunch. 

Mr. Hays. I will read further and he says : 

Human behavior is the area in which understanding of any general validity- 
is most difficult to obtain. 

You would agree with that, would you not ? 

Dr. Hobbs. I am sorry, sir, would you repeat that ? 

Mr. Hays (reading) : 

Human behavior is the area in which understanding of any general validity 
is most difficult to obtain. 

Dr. Hobbs. If you leave out the supernatural I would say that is 

Mr. Hays. Let us leave it out by all means. 

Dr. Hobbs. Frankly, we have been in a couple of areas here that 
I have very little knowledge of and if we get into the supernatural 
I will be completely without knowledge. 


Mr. Hays. The reason I ask that is that it goes right back to what 
we have been saying all along. You can change the words "human 
behavior" to make them read "social science" and we would come up 
with about the same general conclusion, would we not? 

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hays. That any experimentation with human behavior or the 
social sciences or anything concerning the behavior of men is an 
experiment or a research that you can't put any adequate controls on ? 

Dr. Hobbs. That would be my view. 

Mr. Hays. So it is more or less an excursion into the dark and any 
conclusions that you come up with should be qualified by saying that 
there is no way to validly set up a scientific control, so these are 
merely conclusions and the best we can come to in the light of what 
we have done. 

Dr. Hobbs. Exactly. 

Mr. Hays. If the foundations adopt that as a principle in their 
grants for research into the social sciences, you would be satisfied? 

Dr. Hobbs. I would say that would be a commendable forward step. 

Mr. Hays. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

If not, we thank you very kindly, Professor Hobbs. 

Dr. Hobbs. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Whom do you wish to call ? 

Mr. Wormser. I would like to call Mr. McMece. 

Mr. Hays. You say you wanted to call Mr. McNiece. It is time 
for the morning bell for the House. I wonder if it would not be well 
to go over to Monday ? 

Mr. Koch. Mr. McNiece's presentation, which is long, we can 
put on at any time, so if we don't start Monday, because we have 
some other witnesses, we will put it on later. 

The Chairman. As I understand, Mr. Wormser, the witness who 
is to be here Monday is Mr. Sargent, of California. I might say Mr. 
Sargent was the man who was first invited to become general counsel 
of the Cox committee, the predecessor of this committee, and for rea- 
sons at that time was unable to accept the invitation, but he is a student 
of questions which we are dealing with here and, based upon my 
knowledge of Mr. Sargent in other ways, I think his testimony 
will contain a great deal of interest. 

Mr. Hays. Let me ask this while we are on the matter of whom 
we are going to call. You say Mr. Sargent was first approached 
about being counsel for the Cox committee ? 

The Chairman. He was invited to be counsel of the committee 
by Mr. Cox. 

Mr. Hays. Would it be possible at some time to bring in the counsel 
of the Cox committee? There are a lot of questions I would like to 
ask him. 

The Chairman. I think that is something that might be considered. 

Mr. Hays. I want to get a request in right now before we run out 
of time. 

I would like to have the counsel of the Cox committee brought in 
one day. Ask him to come. I think he could give us some very valu- 
able statements. 


The Chairman. I think your suggestion is well received. 

The committee on Monday will meet in the caucus room in the Old 
House Office Building, which is room 362, at 10 a. m. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 50 p. m., Thursday, May 20, the hearing was 
recessed until 10 a. m., Monday, May 24, 1954.) 


MONDAY, MAY 24, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate 

Tax Exempt Foundations, 

WasMngto% D. C. 
The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. B. Carroll Reece (chair- 
man of the special subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Representatives Reece, Hays, and Pfost. 
Also present : Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst. 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Who is your first witness, Mr. Wormser ? 
Mr. Wormser. Mr. Aaron Sargent, of San Francisco. 
The Chairman. Will you be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the 
testimony you are about to give in this proceeding shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 


Mr. Sargent. Yes; I do. I have the original subpena Mr. Reece 
served me. May I lodge it with the clerk at this time? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wormser. Will you state your name, address, and occupation 
for the record, please ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. My name is Aaron M. Sargent. My occupa- 
tion is attorney at law. I also have had experience in connection with 
special investigations and research, particularly in the educational 
and ahtisubversive field. My office is in the Hobart Building in San 
Francisco, Calif. I maintain a research office at Palo Alto, Calif., 
which is down in the San Francisco Peninsula. My residence is 606 
Santa Rita Avenue, Palo Alto, Calif. 

Mr, Wormser. Mr. Sargent, you are here, I understand, to give 
testimony on radicalism in education and the responsibility of the 
foundations for it ? 

Mr. Hays. Before we go any further, I have a few questions I would 
like to ask. 

Mr. Wormser. I was just going to ask him to qualify himself. 

Mr. Hays. I am going to qualify him. Were you ever offered the 
counselship of the Cox committee ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, sir. 


49720—54 — pt. 1 13 


Mr. Hays. Do you have any documentary evidence to that effect ? 

Mr. Sargent. Not in my possession. You mean the specific offer- 
ing of the position or discussion of my possible employment ? 

Mr. Hays. I asked you a specific question. Were you offered the 
counselship of the Cox committee ? 

Mr. Sargent. In substance, yes. It was indicated verbally that my 
appointment would be looked upon favorably. The actual tender I 
do not think was made. I discussed the matter with Judge Cox in 
Washington at the time. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, it was an informal discussion about the 
possibility of it, but actually you were never specifically offered it? 

Mr. Sargent. No. I was never specifically offered it in a formal 
way. It was under discussion. I found myself unable to do it for 
a number of reasons. 

The Chairman. Would you permit an interjection, Mr. Hays? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. 

The Chairman. As a member of the Cox committee, I might say 
Judge Cox brought up the question of counsel. He brought up the 
name of Mr. Sargent and gave his background and his evaluation of 
him, which was favorable, indicating that he thought favorably of 
his selection. The committee at this informal session authorized him 
to get in touch with Mr. Sargent and negotiate with him. I do not 
remember the exact details but as I recall it, the inference was to con- 
clude a contract with him if he desired to do so. 

At a later meeting he advised the committee that he had contacted 
Mr. Sargent, who at that time was in Texas attending a bar associa- 
tion meeting of some kind. 

Mr. Sargent. It was a meeting of the Sons of the American Revo- 
lution, National Society, at Houston. 

The Chairman. He advised he would be unable to accept the coun- 
selship. That is the basis for my reference the other day. In view 
of the fact that I made that reference, I thought I should further 
explain the statement. 

Mr. Hays. Did you ever offer to work for the Cox committee later 
on, Mr. Sargent, after the counsel was chosen ? 

Mr. Sargent. No; I never did. Mr. Harold Keele, the counsel for 
the committee, contacted me when I w 7 as in Washington — I do not 
recall the exact date — September or October of that year. What year 
was that? That committee was acting in 1952. 

Mr. Hays. Yes'. " 

Mr. Sargent. It would be about October, as I recall, of 1952. I was 
staying at the Statler. Mr. Keele's office contacted me and requested 
me to confer with him, which I did, and he asked me what I knew 
about this thing. We went over it in some detail. He asked in what 
way I could be of any help. I said if you feel that my services would 
be of any assistance to you, I will see 'what I can do. But I was never 
requested to act, and I did not solicit the arrangement in any way. 
The entire request originated from Mr. Keele. He had me meet with 
the staff at lunch and we did various things. 

Mr. Hays. Yoti are testifving now that Mr. Keele asked you. 

Mr. Sargent, Correct. He asked me in what way I could help. 
I indicated I thought that there were only two ways — as a witness, 
or possibly under some special employment. It was in response to 
his question how I could aid him. I did not want the association at 


the time. I had a great deal of responsibility. I did not even con- 
tact his office. I was m town on other business. 

Mr. Hays. Did you have a conference with Mr. Keele at that time ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, I did ; a long conference. 

Mr. Hats. It lasted until 8 : 30 or so in the evening ? ' t 

Mr. Sargent. I do not recall the hour. It lasted a long time. He 
reviewed a great many things about his policies in the handling of the 
investigation and so forth. 

Mr. Hays. Do you recall saying that you would be available for 
special consultation or investigative work to this Cox committee at 
a fee of about $100 to $125 a day ? 

Mr. Sargent. I may have stated that amount. That is about what 
it is worth for an attorney to leave his business and go out of town 
and attend things of this kind. It is a very expensive and heavy 
responsibility. I may have said that. 

Mr. Hays. And you recall that was considerably more than the 
counsel was getting and that the committee probably would not pay 
that, is that correct? 

Mr. Sargent. I think it was indicated that it was higher than the 
scale; yes. However, that is what the sacrifice was worth to me. 

Mr. Hays. Did you tell Mr. Keele the reason that you had declined 
the job of counsel of the Cox committee? Did you tell him that? 

Mr. Sargent. I think he knew it all right. I don't specifically 

Mr. Hays. Remember you are under oath. You just testified that 
you were not specifically tendered the job. I am asking you, Did you 
tell Mr. Keele that you declined the job ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know whether I did or not. You are being 
technical, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. No ; I am not being technical at all. I am just asking 
you a question. You either did or didn't. 

Mr. Sargent. I may have used that expression, but in a technical 
and exact sense, I was not tendered the job. I felt here in justice to 
this committee I should not make that statement. There was no for- 
mal notice or a letter stating that "we offer you the counselship of the 

Mr, Hays. We brought that out. 

Mr. Sargent. I may have used that reference in talking to Mr. 
Keele in a loose general sense, in the sense I knew I probably could 
be appointed and indicating to them I could not be available. I think 
I would have been justified in making that statement. I said generally 
something of that nature. 

Mr. Hays. All right. I am not going to try to pin you down more 
than that. 

Mr. Sargent. In a technical sense, I was not offered the job, no. 

Mr. Hays. Did you give Mr. Keele any reason why you would not 
have taken the job? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't remember. I may have indicated something. 
I don't recall specifically at this time. 

Mr. Hays. You don't remember whether you told him that you had 
an estate that you were executor for in California and you could not 
afford to turn down the fee involved ? 

Mr. Sargent. I could have told him that. That is the fact. It is 
an estate pending at the present time, as a matter of fact. I am still 
working on it. 


Mr. Hays. Did Mr. Keele question you anything about the size of 
that estate? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know whether he did or not. I don't know 
whether he did or not. I don't mind telling you it is a quarter-million- 
dollar estate in probate. It is important business. The party died 
while I was in the East. 

Mr. Hats. Have you at any time in the past criticized the Cox com- 
mittee on the ground that the questionnaires were not sworn to? 

Mr. SargeNt. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. Did you discuss with Mr. Keele at any time during your 
conference the problem of having those questionnaires sworn to ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes; I asked why there was no oath on that question- 
naire form. He Said he was going to bring these people in later and 
cross-examine them and use these statements to get preliminary 

Mr. Hats. Did you happen to discuss it with him to the extent of 
agreeing that had they tried in the limited time to get the question- 
naires sworn to that they probably would not have gotten any back ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think he said something like that. I don't recall 
I ever said it. 

Mr. Hats. You do not know whether you agreed with that 
conclusion? . 

Mr. Sargent. I don't think so. I was a little disturbed at the proce- 
dure. It looked a little irregular to me. That committee had the 
subpena power, including power to compel answer. I thought the 
procedure w r as a little different, to say the least. 

Mr. Hats. Did you discuss the mechanics of this thing ? This com- 
mittee only had a life of 6 months. Wasn't the question discussed 
that, if they required sworn questionnaires, that they probably 
wouldn't have had time to check every answer of the foundations, and 
the committee probbaly would not have gotten back anything, so under 
the circumstances it was better to go ahead this way than to risk 
getting nothing? 

Mr. Sargent. You misunderstand the purpose and scope of that 
conversation, Mr. Hays. I didn't go there to discuss any of these 
things with Mr. Keele. He called me in because he wanted to talk 
to me and he outlined various things and I commented upon some of 

Mr. Hays. He called you in ? 

Mr. Sargent. I was definitely there at his request, and I remained 
for a very long time, longer than I had any idea of staying. I got 
there about 4 o'clock in the afternoon and I didn't get out until prob- 
ably around 8 o'clock, nearly 3 or 4 hours. 

Mr. Hays. I do not know who called you. 

Mr. Sargent. He did. I didn't discuss these things with him at all, 
except I might comment on what he said. He was apparently trying 
to tell me what he was going to do. I was not guiding him. 

Mr. Hays. It has been stated here by Mr. Dodd that there are certain 
things missing from the files of the Cox committee. At least one set 
of the answers to these questionnaires. Do you happen to have that 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir. 

Mr. Hays. Did you ever have it? 


Mr. Sargent. No, sir ; I never did. The answers to questionnaires ? 
In the first place 

Mr. Hays. Do you have any material that came out of the files of 
the Cox committee ? 

Mr. Sargent. Not a single piece of paper of any kind. I think the 
suggestion is a little bit unfair, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. Well, no w 

Mr. Sargent. May I answer further, please? 

Mr. Hats. Yes; you may answer, but we are not going to make 
speeches. I have been lenient with you on making speeches so far. Do 
you know a fellow by the name of "Bugeye" Barker ? 

Mr. Sargent. I want to answer the other question first. 

Mr. Hats, You said you didn't have any papers. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes ; but I want to explain the circumstances to show 
I couldn't have any in the first place. May I answer ? 

Mr. Hays. No ; you cannot make a speech. 

Mr. Sargent. I am not going to make a speech. May I answer that 
question first, please? 

Mr. Hats. You can answer whether or not you have anything out 
of the files of the Cox committee. 

Mr. Sargent. I want to explain. 

Mr. Hays. I will give you a chance to explain why you couldn't 
have later. 

Mr. Sargent. I did not at any time have access to those question- 
naires or the answers except under the jurisdiction of the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives in his office in one of these buildings 
under his custody and in his office. The questionnaires had never been 
answered when I saw Mr. Keele, which was in October. They had 
been sent out. I saw no answers at that time. 

Mr. Hays. Do you know one George, commonly known around 
here as Bugeye Barker ? 

Mr. Sargent. I met him when I was in town. 

Mr. Hats. Did he ever deliver anything to you from the files of 
the Cox committee ? 

Mr. Sargent. Not a single piece of paper of any kind. 

Mr. Hats. Did you try to get from Mr. Keele any material about 
the Cox committee? 

Mr. Sargent. Not a single thing except a transcript I wanted to 
borrow later. He handed me some kind of printed forms of question- 
naires he was supposed to use. I think I took a few of those away 
with me, j ust blank forms, nothing aside from that. 

Mr. Hats. You didn't ask for anything and later complained that 
he turned you down ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, of course not. I had no right to ask anything 
of him. I never did except with respect to the transcript of the Hiss 

Mr. Hats. Do you know a George DeHuszar? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, he is in Chicago. 

Mr. Hats. Have you ever worked with him ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, I never worked with him. I discussed problems 
with him from time to time. But I never worked with him on any 
situation. I have corresponded with him as I do with other people 
interested in this kind of work. He did a small job for me years 


ago, long before the Cox committee, and gave me some reports on 
some matters. 

Mr. Hats. Did I understand you to just say that you never asked 
Mr. Keele for anything? 

Mr. Sargent. Any documentary material? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. 

Mr. Sargent. I am pretty clear I never did. 

Mr. Hays. Did you ever ask him for any information? 

Mr. Sargent. I asked him at one time if he could get me access 
to the printed transcript of the proceedings on the trial of Alger Hiss. 
I asked him if he could give me that. I was doing research and I 
wanted to go over the transcript. He told me by letter he didn't 
have it. I later obtained it from another source. I did ask him for 
that. I never asked him for any committee material. I think that 
is the only thing I ever did ask him for. 

Mr. Hays. Did you write him at least two letters demanding cer- 
tain information relative to the work of the committee? 

Mr. Sargent. Not demanding anything, no. I had a few letters 
with him, yes. I will be glad to identify any letters of mine if you 
have them there, and if I look at my file at home, I will send you 
copies of what my correspondence with him was. 

Mr. Hays. Did you write him any letters wanting to know why 
witnesses had not been sworn ? 

Mr. Sargent. After the thing was over, I did. I wanted to pin 
him down and tried to find why. That was after the committee had 
disbanded. Yes, I did ask for his explanation and I got no satis- 
factory answer. 

Mr. Hays. You didn't sort of try to run this Cox investigation 
from the sidelines by any chance, did you? 

Mr. Sargent. No, not under any conditions. I had nothing to do 
with it. I waited until it was all over. I received the report and the 
published transactions. I looked them over. I then discovered that 
the witnesses had not been sworn. I was amazed about it. Mr. Keele's 
explanation to me was the fact that some sworn testimony would be 
taken. I was astounded at what I found. I then opened correspond- 
ence with Mr. Keele to find out why he had not done so. That is when 
the correspondence originated on the swearing of witnesses. 

Mr. Hays. Did you at any time want to set up another committee in 
this session of the Congress? 

Mr. Sargent. Another committee? 

Mr. Hays. A similar committee to the Cox committee — this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Sargent. You mean aside from this committee here? 

Mr. Hays. No. Did you at any time either verbally or in writing 
ask anyone to introduce a resolution setting up sujih a committee as we 
have meeting here today? 

Mr. Sargent. No. The resolution was introduced. I was back here 
after the resolution was introduced, and I was in favor of the resolu- 
tion carrying. I did not suggest a resolution to be offered in the 
first place. I had nothing to do with that. 

Mr. Hays. Did any member of this committee tender you the job 
of counsel or approach you ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, not under those circumstances, not even by sug- 
gestion or indirection. 


Mr. Hats. Did you approach anyone asking to be considered? 

Mr. Sargent. No. 

Mr. Hays. How was the contact made that brings you here today, 
Mr. Sargent? 

Mr. Sargent. I received a letter from Mr. Norman Dodd. I don't 
have the exact date. 

Mr. Hays. That is immaterial. 

Mr. Sargent. I received a letter quite recently inquiring whether I 
could be in any way helpful to this committee. I wired Mr. Dodd 
back and told him that if they desired to take care of the usuaL ex- 
penses that I would be willing to come back and lay the entire matter 
before you. I received in response to that wire a telegram from Mr. 
Dodd stating that my willingness to do that was greatly appreciated; 
that the expenses would be provided, and that I would be notified 
shortly. I talked with him on the phone subsequently, and I told him 
that I felt that if I came, I should have the protection of subpena so 
as to make it clearly a well-defined legal arrangement. The subpena 
was forthcoming, and I came. This originated in the first place at 
the instance of your staff, and throughout was at their request, and not 
my request. If that had not happened, I would never have been here 
at all. 

Mr. Hays. Understand I am not trying to lead you into anything on 
that question. I am merely trying to find out how the contact was 

Mr. Sargent. The contract was made at the instance of your staff. 
I am here at their request. 

Mr. Hays. As I understand it from this three-page mimeographed 
form that you have here, in which you say in the last paragraph that 
a considerable amount of time is required for your presentation. I 
assume that you have a prepared presentation there, well documented 
and so on. 

Mr. Sargent. I have an outline to enable me to testify. It is not 
prepared in the sense that it can be mimeographed and distributed 
and have any use. I have an outline and it is organized to minimize 
your time and to be orderly in its handling. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, you are sitting there with a prepared 
script that you cannot furnish to the committee, is that it ? 

Mr. Sargent. The question is not being able to furnish the com- 
mittee. I understand you want to know what I know about this sub- 
ject. I have arranged notes to enable me to do this with a minimum 
of time and lost motion. I have such an outline for my guidance, 
yes. The first part of my testimony, Mr. Hays, will be devoted to 
this first statement here. For your convenience, as I get .to other 
sections of this, I will try and give you some sort of agenda as best 
I can. I have been in town only 5 days and working constantly to put 
this material together after I got here. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Hays. I will ask you one more question, Mr. Sargent. In view 
of the fact that you do not have a prepared statement, and according 
to the short statement you have here, you say that it is going to be 
very long, you would not' have any objection if the committee inter- 
rupted you at any place to try to ask you a question to clarify some- 


Mr. Sargent. No; subject to one request, Mr. Hays. It may de- 
velop that you will ask me some question which cannot be fully 
answered without reference to other testimony I propose to give. 
In a case of that kind, I would like to indicate to you the nature of 
the other testimony, and ask leave to respond to it later. Running 
questions as we go, of course, I am happy to answer. . 

Mr. Hays. The committee will not try to put a limitation on your 

Mr. Sargent. No; there are several blocks of testimony and one 
of these questions may anticipate something which I am going to cover 
very fully. 

The Chairman. Also, Mr. Sargent, I have indicated to Mr. Hays 
and Mrs. Pfost that in addition to the questions they may ask as they 
go along, that after reading the full transcript of your testimony, if 
further questioning is desired, that you wul become available to 

Mr. Sargent. Certainly, except I do hope that it is possible to mini- 
mize my stay in Washington and do it promptly. I have to go to 
New York from here. If I can get through this continuously to a 
point where you are approximately through, I will contact the com- 
mittee staff, and if you want to hold one more hearing to question 
me further on my testimony in coming back from New York I can do 
that, and perhaps that will accomplish your purpose. 

Mrs. Pfost. Mr. Sargent, you have no carbon copies at all. You 
have only one original of your lengthy testimony ? 

Mr. Sargent. I have not written out my testimony. I am giving 
it as I go. I have notes from which I can testify to these various 
facts. I haven't it written out in full, no. I am testifying and not 
just reading a piece of paper here. 

Mr. Hays. Let me ask you this, and I am trying again to get some 
clarification on this. Do you propose being specific? If you make 
any generalizations, are you going to try to document those, and 
name names ? 

Mr. Sargent. I propose to be absolutely specific and to make my 
statements based upon documents which I personally have examined. 
In some cases I have the document right here and I will read from the 
document itself. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, you will read excerpts \ 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, and I will cite the original source. I am refer- 
ring to books. I am refering to manuscript material. 

Mr. Hays, All right. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, then, Mr. Sargent. 

Mr. Wormser. May I first ask, Mr. Sargent, to state what educa- 
tional and other experience you may have had which might qualify 
you to give expert testimony in this proceeding 1 

Mr. Sargent. From the standpoint of educational background, I 
am a graduate of Stanford University, class of 1923, receiving a de- 
gree of bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, I was gradu- 
ated from Hastings College of Law, which is the University of Cali- 
fornia, in 1926, being granted the degree, bachelor of laws. I was 
admitted to the bar of the State of California in 1926. I became 
a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court in 1930. 
I am a member of the American Bar Association, the American Judi- 
cature Society, State Bar of California. Twenty-seven years experi- 


ence in the active practice of law, and 17 of those years concerned to 
some extent with antisubversive work and investigations affecting 
American education, and particularly the public school system. 

From the standpoint of specific proceedings, I participated in hear- 
ings in 1941-42, before the San Francisco City Board of Education 
in regard to Rugg social science textbooks. Between 1942 and 1945, 
I studied the progressive system of education. This was done at 
the request of the California Society, Sons of the American Revolu- 
tion. We inquired into the textbook condition of our State schools 
and our State department of education at Sacramento. 

In 1946, 1 began the inquiry which led up to the proceedings which 
were later brought to Congress on the so-called Building America 

I handled proceedings for the SAR before the State Board of 
Education of California, and later made a presentation before legis- 
lative committees on that. I drafted certain legislative bills on educa- 
tion for that session at the request of various parties involved. I 
have since studied the national aspects of this subversive teaching 

I am the author of the Bill of Grievances which was filed with the 
Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, and the Un-Amer- 
ican Activities Committee of the House of Representatives by the 
National Society, Sons of the American Revolution. I conducted the 
research on which that document was based. 

In 1952 for a brief period in May I was employed as a consultant 
for staff work in research by the Senate Internal Security Commit- 
tee. In 1952-53 1 directed some research work conducted at the Hoover 
Institute Library at Stanford University on war, peace, and revolution. 
That is the collection of material assembled by Mr. Herbert Hoover 
and his associates. 

I have studied curriculum and teaching methods in social studies, 
the philosophy and practice involved in the progressive system of 
education, communism in education, also propaganda, tactics and ac- 
tivities of revolutionary organizations, and the history of subversive 
movement. Likewise the legal and constitutional questions involved. 

On the question here by Mr. Hays it was brought out the cir- 
cumstances under which I came. I served for a number of years as 
chairman of the Americanization committee of the National Society, 
Sons of the American Revolution. I do not occupy that office at the 
present time. I am merely a member in good standing of the Society. 
I am here not as the representative of any group, but an individual 
citizen under subpena by you. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I wish to acquaint you with this 
fact at the present time. I am the president and research director of 
a tax-exempt foundation for educational work that was recently 
organized but which has no funds at its disposal at the present time, 
and which has had no business relationships of any kind with any 
foundation to which I will refer in my testimony. The corporation 
is entitled, "Fund for American Leadership, Inc." It was organized 
under California law on August 17, 1953, for the purpose of train- 
ing leaders in antisubversive work and studying revolutionary meth- 
ods, their history, development and activities, which threaten the 
national security, their propaganda, impact on American institutions, 


to study educational problems arising out of that condition and to 
determine sound and practical solutions. 

I have here a certified copy of those articles which I would like 
to have made a part of the committee files. 

Mr. Hats. Just a minute. Let me ask you about that. Has that 
foundation ever had any money ? 

Mr. Sargent. No. It still has no money. We are in the process 
of determining what contact can be made to get funds. 

Mr. Hays. I just suggest in view of some of the statements that 
have been made about the gullibility of some of these people you 
ought not to have much trouble in getting money. 

Mr. Sargent. The difficulty is that our side can't get the money, 
but the other side can always get it. This corporation was created 
to find American money to study the antisubversive 

Mr. Hays. All you ought to do is say that in Texas and if you 
are any kind of salesman at all, you ought to get the money. 

Mr. Sargent. So I appear strictly in an individual capacity. That 
corporation is not affected in this matter. I am speaking entirely on 
that basis. 

Now, I have a prepared statement for the committee which at this 
time I would like to read. 

The investigation required of this committee is one of the most 
important matters which has ever come before the Congress of the 
United States. It concerns the national security, the defense of the 
principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. You 
will find that the situation confronting you is the result of a disre- 
gard of trust responsibility — a condition amounting to abdication of 
duty by the trustees of the tax-exmpt foundations which have exerted 
such a great influence in the history of our country since the turn of 
the century. 

In discharging its responsibility and weighing the evidence, this 
committee must have some standard or yardstick to apply. I believe 
the following pre the legal and moral standards which apply to this 
trust relationship. 

This is an elaboration of the poster we have on the board here. 

Standards of foundation conduct: It is the duty of tax-exempt 
foundations and their trustees to observe and be. guided by the follow- 
ing standards of conduct : 

First : Patriotism. To bear true faith and allegiance to the philos- 
ophy and principles of government set forth in the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution of the United States. 

Second: Loyalty. To be active and positive in supporting the 
United States Government against revolutionary and other subversive 
attacks ; 

To put patriotic money at the disposal of patriotic men in this field 
of education to enable them to support and defend our Constitution 
and form of government. 

Third : Obedience to law. To faithfully obey the laws of the United 
States and the provisions of State law under which foundation 
charters are granted ; 

Fourth : Respect for exemption. To use the tax-exemption privi- 
lege in good faith, recognizing the purpose for which that privilege 
is granted; 


To refrain from supporting communism, socialism, and other move- 
ments which (1) increase the cost of government, (2) endanger the 
national security, or (3) threaten the integrity of the Federal Govern- 

Mr. Hats. Right there, I am going to stop you and ask you a ques- 
tion. That is a very fine statement, but if you refrain from supporting 
everything that the Republican campaign orators called socialism, 
then you would be against everything that has been passed by the 
Congress in the past 20 years. Is that your definition ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir. When I talk about socialism in my testi- 
mony, Mr. Hays, I mean socialism of the kind advocated by the Fa- 
bians of Great Britain, which has ruined the economic system of that 
country, not individual projects which may seem wise for some 
purpose or other on their own merits. 

Mr. Hats. I won't debate with you what has ruined the economic 
system of Great Britain or even say that Time magazine, a week or 
two ago, talked about the remarkable recovery and the great dollar 
balance. We will leave that out. Would you consider bank-deposit 
insurance to be socialism? 

Mr. Sargent. No ; not within the scope of what I mean here. 

Mr. Hats. We want to get this term straightened out, because it has 
been too widely applied. 

Mr. Sargent. I am very happy to do that. 

Mr. Hats. How about old-age insurance? 

Mr. Sargent. No. 

Mr. Hats. Social security and unemployment insurance? 

Mr. Sargent. No. 

Mr. Hats. You would not consider any of those to be socialism ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am talking about nationalization of business and 
industry, a government-operated system which is national socialism 
or Fabian socialism. 

Mr. Hats. We will try to get one maybe you can get in on. How 
about TVA? 

Mr. Sargent. I think that is doubtful. 

Mr. Hats. That is in the sort of gray area ? 

Mr. Sargent. You are not asking my policy on legislative matters 

Mr. Hats. No ; but you are throwing these terms around, and you 
are going to continue, I am pretty sure, and I want to get a delineation 
of what is and what is not socialism when you use the word. You say 
it is Fabian socialism. You may understand that and I may have 
some smattering of what it means, but, if they put that in the news- 
papers, to 99 percent of the people it is going to mean nothing. So 
I am trying to get this down 

The Chairman. Since TVA has been interjected, may I also make a 
comment on that. I think I can do so objectively. The TVA was 
started initially purely as a defense project for the purpose of manu- 
facturing nitrogen which was then not available in adequate and in- 
sured quantities. That is back in World War I. Then in connection 
with the expansion of the development it was based upon flood con- 
trol, which is a very important phase of the TVA development. Then 
since the expenditures were being made for flood control and defense, 
there was an incidental development, which was power. I think all 


engineers recognize that if the Government was going in to develop 
the river for adequate flood-control purposes, as well as defense, that 
then adequate provision must be made for the development of the river 
for power purposes. 

The only question remaining to be decided was the manner in which 
the power development should be carried out. I think there was never 
any question after the Government moved in but that the Government 
should construct the dams. The question arose as to the manner in 
which the power should be distributed. That is the key question. 

If you will pardon me, since the question has come up and it comes 
up frequently, a sharp difference of opinion existed — I was chairman 
of the subcommittee that drafted the original Tennessee Valley devel- 
opment and was chairman of the House conference committee. 

One of the very sharp differences between the Senate committee and 
the House committee was with reference to the distributing of the 
power. As an individual, and I was supported by the majority of 
the House conferees, I opposed the Federal Government establishing a 
sprawling power-distributing system, and advocated instead that the 
local authorities be permitted to organize companies for the distribu- 
tion of the power. When the TVA Act in its final form was adopted, 
that policy was embodied in the act. So that the Federal Govern- 
ment does not distribute the power. I think this is an important 
thing to keep in mind. The government outside of its defense and 
flood-control aspects generates the power and sells it wholesale to the 
various distributing agencies, which in the main are owned by munici- 
palities. If desired, those distributing facilities could be owned 
privately, as I recall, but it happens that none of them is. 

I think when we get to questioning the socialism aspect of TVA, it 
is well to keep in mind just what the TVA is ; and that is the reason I 
am taking a little while here to make this explanation with reference 
to the Tennessee Valley Authority in view of my intimate relations 
with it from its very inception. 

Mr. Hays. Just let me say a word or two to clarify a couple of 
things. In the first place, the incidental bydevelopment, which is 
power, is the thing that put refrigerators in the kitchens and better 
food on the table, and, in many cases, shoes on the feet of a lot of people 
down in east Tennessee and other areas around there. I am using 
that in a rather facetious way, but I am saying that it has created jobs 
where there were no jobs, and it has been good for the whole economy. 
The only way we did it differently in my district — we had the power 
there, but we had no way to distribute it. 

The record will show that I have been objecting strenuously as a 
member of an EEA co-op to building our own power facilities when 
there was plenty of power to buy. So we built the distribution plant 
and we did it in reverse. I am aware of the sharp differences of 
opinion. I was interested in getting power to the farmers. We do 
have it. The power companies generate it and sell it to the co-ops who 
sell it to their members. It is an interesting example of private busi- 
ness and cooperatives working hand in hand to the mutual profit of 

The only reason I have brought up TVA is because it has been 
called and has become associated in the minds of a great many people 
with the term "socialism." I wanted to know when we are using the 
term here what it does and does not cover. 


Mr. Sargent. When I use the term "socialism," I refer to the politi- 
cal movement which is known as the Socialist movement. The move- 
ment which is working for a general program of planned economy 
based on nationalization of industry, business, national resources, and 
credit. The political operation of a nation's economy, not fragmen- 
tary things. Politics is something which these foundations are not 
supposed to go into, and I think they have no right to undermine the 
basis of their exemption by doing things of that type, 

Mr. Hays. We will get to that in your specific accusations. 

Mr. Sargent. The fifth standard here is academic responsibility. 
This is a part of my concept of standards of foundation conduct. 

Academic responsibility requires these foundations to limit their 
activities to projects which are, in fact, educational, and are con- 
ducted in an academically responsible manner in accordance with, 
proper academic standards; 

To refrain from using education as a device for lobbying or a means 
to disseminate propaganda. 

That is the end of the statement of standards. 

The money administered by these foundation trustees is public 
money. The beneficiaries of these trusts are the American people; 
the parents of children in our public schools. Education is a sacred 
trust." A high degree of integrity is expected of those connected with 
it. We must consider the ethical duty of foundation trustees from 
that standpoint. 

Serious charges have been made against the foundations : It is your 
duty to answer these questions ; to find solutions and perhaps recom- 
mend legislative action. I intend to be objective and give you the 
facts ; to present the truth without fear or favor. This presentation 
will cover the history of the subversive movement ; it will outline the 
boundaries of the problem ; discuss the most important ramifications, 
and endeavor to give the data required for your consideration. 

The subject is important, and also complex. Under the most favor- 
able conditions, a considerable amount of time is required for my 

The Chairman. Now, reverting back to the TVA, because refer- 
ence was made to wearing shoes. 

Mr. Hays. I am glad to discuss that with you all afternoon. 

The Chairman. I might say that some of them wore shoes down 
there before TVA. 

Mr. Sargent. Inasmuch as this matter touches directly on educa- 
tion and involves a degree of criticism, I think it fair and proper for 
me to state very briefly my position on the question of public education 
and the public schools. It is as follows : 

I support the public-school system and recognize its necessity to 
make our system of government workable in practice. I believe it is 
necessary and essential to maintain the integrity of that system and 
protect it from subversives, political action and other pressure groups. 
I believe in the fundamental integrity of the average teacher. I am 
convinced that the best interests of the teaching profession will be 
served by the investigation to be made by this committee, and that such 
an inquiry will restore integrity in the educational profession and 
enable the schools to regain the position of confidence and esteem thev 
should have in the hearts of the American people. 


Mr. Hats. You are saying by inference that they do not have that 
position at the moment? 

Mr. Sargent. I think they have lost it to a degree, Mr. Hays, because 
of the tactics to which I refer. 

Mr. Hays. You talk about California. But I want to put in the 
record right here that the schools in Ohio have not lost the confidence 
of the people, and they have not lost any integrity, and they are just 
as good as they ever were ; in fact, they are a little better. 

Mr. Sargent. Have you seen the magazine articles about the people 
being concerned about the conditions of their schools nationally ? 

Mr. Hays. Do you believe in astrology ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir ; not I. 

Mr. Hays. Could you give me any reason why there are so many 
peculiar people drawn to southern Calif ornia ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't live in southern California, and I wouldn't 

Mr. Hays. You know, it is a funny thing, but every time we get 
an extremist letter in my office — and it is either on the left or the 
right — you don't have to look at the postmark. It either comes from 
southern California or Houston, Tex. I just wonder if there is some 
reason for it. 

Mr. Sargent. I think, Mr. Hays, you will certainly want to reserve 
your judgment about this question of the schools' integrity being 
involved until you have heard the evidence in this case, and I would 
like to present it from that point of view. 

Mr. Hays. I just want to put in about the schools in Ohio. If you 
have any evidence to the contrary, we will get down to specific cases. 

Mr. Sargent. I know nothing about the Ohio situation specifically, 
either pro or con. 

Mr. Hays. I thought not. I know a good deal about it. I happened 
to be a teacher there. I have a lot of friends who have positions as 
superintendents and executives in the school system from the large 
to the small cities. There is no question about it. Not even some 
crackpots in our legislature who have wanted to investigate every- 
thing else have investigated the schools, because there is no demand 
or reason. 

Mr. Sargent. I am giving you facts and not opinion. First of all, 
in approaching this problem of the foundation influence, the sub- 
versive-teaching problem is a foundation problem, and the founda- 
tion problem in turn is a political problem with many ramifications. 
From the American standpoint it had its beginning shortly before the 
turn of the century in the 1890's. This movement is closely related 
to Fabian socialism, which became established in Great Britain about 
1885, and developed into the movement which has undermined and 
almost destroyed the economic system of Great Britain. 

When the beachhead was established in our country, we had three 
bulwarks of defense: First, there was a sound tradition founded on 
Americanism; secondly, a written Constitution, and finally, Federal 
judicial power in the courts capable of enforcing constitutional rights. 

The radical intellectuals attacking that system relied upon propa- 
ganda and brainwashing. They organized an attack upon patriotism, 
challenging basic American philosophy founded on the doctrine of 
natural law. They sought to create a blackout of history by slanting 


and distorting historical facts. They introduced a new and revolu- 
tionary philosophy — one based on the teachings of John Dewey. 

As early as 1892 they sought to establish the Federal income tax to 
pave the way for national Federal socialism. This had the effect of 
putting the people on an allowance, giving the National Government 
unlimited power to spend for socialistic purposes, and reducing the 
people to its will. It was proposed to carry out other parts of the so- 
cialistic program by false and slanted propaganda. 

Eventually the judicial power itself was to be undermined by court 
packing and by attacks calculated to make the courts subject to the 

Education is one of the vital areas involved in this attack on the 
American system. The field includes not only elementary and sec- 
ondary schools, but also our colleges and universities. The tax-exempt 
foundations are directly involved, because they have supported this 
movement in the past, and are still promoting it in ways which restrict 
educational activities and control public opinion. 

The history of this movement is a record of the greatest betrayal 
which has ever occurred in American history. Those are conclusions 
based on the evidence I will present to you, and I am here for the 
purpose of proving them. 

To understand these condition, it is necessary to trace briefly the 
history and development of the American subversive movement. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, I want to object to going further, and I 
want to make a motion that the committee adjourn until we settle this 
matter. This fellow can come in and read a political speech which he 
has had plenty of time to prepare. He has a mimeographed news re- 
lease to the newspapers to get his views across, but he can't do it for 
the committee. I don't know who mimeographed this for him, but it 
looks like it came from the staff. Until we get a vote of the committee 
in executive session, I move right now that the committee adjourn. 

The Chairman. With reference to the mimeographing, the chair- 
man suggested to the staff that he thought it would be a convenience to 
the press to have a release for the press in advance. 

Mr. Hays. The press is here, and they can decide for themselves 
about these kinds of people. They do not have to have any spoon-fed 
stuff. I don't give them any of mine. 

The Chairman. The extent of the mimeograph of the release I 
had no responsibility for. 

Mr. Hays. This kind of stuff goes in the paper. Suppose it is true ? 
I do not know whether it is or not. But we will give it the benefit of 
the doubt. It is in there. If it is not true, it is still in there, if the 
press uses it, which I doubt. 

The Chairman. But it is convenient to the press to have a release in 
advance with the dateline on it. 

Mr. Hays. Yes, sir, it is a convenience for them to have a dateline 
at the same time the committee meets so the press has it, and the public 
has it before the committee hearing. 

Mr. Sargent. This statement was prepared because it was my under- 
standing that it was your desire to have some statement. That state- 
ment is a summary of the historical material. 

Mr. Hays. I am not finding too much fault with you. I would like 
to have the record show that the committee was not notified you were 


subpenaed. We understood you were going to be a witness. We are 
either going to have some orderly procedure here, or we are going to 
adjourn and let the majority decide. If they are going to run it, then 
let them get on the record. 

The Chairman. It is the chairman's thought that all of the wit- 
nesses should be subpenaed, and should be put under oath. That is the 
procedure which we are following. I think in fairness to the witnesses 
they should be subpenaed and they are all put under oath, and every- 
body is on the same basis, and in the same category. That is the or- 
derly procedure. We adopted that procedure at the suggestion of Mr. 
Cox, which I think would serve for that matter as a standard. Every- 
body that has a story is going to have an opportunity to tell his story. 
None of us has any spare time that we want consumed, unless we are 
accomplishing something by it. 

You, as I have, sat on many committees. The witnesses do not 
always have prepared, complete statements in advance. Frequently 
they do have comprehensive notes prepared, which serve as a basis 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt you, there is a princi- 
ple involved here, and that is that everything that Mr. Sargent has 
read up to now since he started reading was furnished to the press 
with a 10 a. m. deadline in a mimeographed form, and it was not fur- 
nished to this committee. If we are going to do this business by indi- 
rection by the back door, and by getting the drop on certain members 
of the committee, I want to know it right now. 

Mr. Wormser. Don't you have a copy of the release ? 

Mr. Hays. Yes, I got one from the press just now. 

Mr. Wormser. It was not on your desk ? 

Mr. Hats. No, it was not. If you want to debate this now, I make 
a motion now that we adjourn and go into executive session. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Hays, Miss Casey told me she herself put a copy 
on your desk. 

Miss Casey. I put all three things on each member's desk. 

Mr. Hays. All right. There are three things ; one, a cover sheet ; two, 
a special release, and this ; I do not have it. That is what Mrs. Pfost 
has. I am not saying that it was intentional, but I am saying that it 
happened that way. There is a principle involved here. There is an 
indictment of the whole American educational system here, which was 
fed out to the press in a mimeographed copy and read to the committee 
at 11 o'clock. The press has had it God knows how long : "Hold for 
release 10 a. m. Monday morning." 

Mr. Sargent. May I proceed with my evidence ? 

Mr. Hays. No, you may not proceed until we either adjourn or I am 
voted down, one of the two. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, may I state that the press has asked 
us specifically whenever we can to give them some sort of digest of 
what the witness is going to testify. 

Mr. Hays. The press has not been alone about that. I have been 
pleading with you for the same thing for the members of the com- 

Mr. Wormser. May I go on. I understood it was proper procedure 
for us to do that. We have done it with considerable effort. It is 
not easy to get these things out. We are trying to suit the convenience 
of the committee, and to the extent that the press is involved, their 
convenience also. 


The Chairman. I might say that so far as the staff is concerned, 
they have resisted doing it. It was at my insistence that they did it, 
because of the great inconvenience that it occasioned them, and the 
facilities of the staff. I insisted that it should be done. I am sure 
that they worked overtime. It was not for the purpose of advancing 
any view or the interests of any phase of this subject under investi- 
gation, but purely based upon my long years of experience here in 
Washington, the convenience of the press having something in ad- 
vance. That is all there was to it. I am at a loss to understand 

Mr. Wormsee. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to suggest that the 
gentlemen of the press here would certainly be willing to state, I am 
sure, that they pleaded with us to give them this digest. 

Mr. Hays. We can put them on the stand and let them state that. 
That doesn't change my mind a bit. If they are entitled to have it, 
the committee is entitled to have it. 

Mr. Wormser. The committee has had it. 

Mr. Hats. Yes, just now, because I raised a rumpus about it. 
We got it only by accident because one of the boys from the press 
table brought it over. 

Mr. Wormser. I beg your pardon. Miss Casey distributed them. 

Mr. Hats. Miss Casey admits through some oversight we did not 
get it. I don't want you to blame Miss Casey. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Pfost, you had one? 

Mrs. Pfost. No, this gentleman of the press handed it over to me, 
and then gave me a second one. 

Mr. Wormser. Miss Casey has made the definite and flat statement 
that she put a full set in front of all five committee members. 

Miss Casey. I put a full set before each member. 

Mrs. Pfost. Here are the three articles, but not the press release. 

Mr. Hays. I didn't eat it, and it is not here. I have not moved out 
of this chair since I have been here. 

The Chairman. Why don't we proceed ? I will call a meeting of 
the committee during the afternoon to discuss any questions of pro- 

Mr. Sargent. May I continue, then, Mr. Reece ? 

Mr. Hays. You can continue and I will withdraw my objection, 
but now I will start asking a few questions about this press release 
I just got. 

You say "when the beachhead was established in our country." 
You are talking about what beachhead ? 

Mr. Sargent. The beachhead of the organized Socialist movement 
which had its inception in Great Britain under the Fabian tactic, and 
which came in here to infiltrate our educational system. 

Mr. Hays. You apparently know there was a beachhead. When 
and where w T as it established? When was the first landing made? 

Mr. Sargent. A definite landing was made as far as becoming an 
effective agency in about 1905 with the organization of the Inter- 
collegiate Socialist Society. That is one of the points I am going to 
cover in my testimony when I get to it. 

Mr. Hays. We will get to it a little in advance. What was the name 
of the organization ? 

Mr. Sargent. Intercollegiate Socialist Society, organized by Jack 
London and a number of others, in Peck's Restaurant in New York 

49720—54— pt. It 14 


Mr. Hays. In 1905? 

Mr. Sargent. About 1905. 

Mr. Hats. By Jack London ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. Is that the Jack London that used to write some books ? 

Mr. Sargent. That is right, that is the man. I have a pamphlet 
explaining that which I will read to the committee when I get to that 

Mr. Hays. Did he import this thing from some other place? 

Mr. Sargent. He was a member of a radical intellectual elite that 
came in here definitely to try to twist our institutions around in favor 
of the organized socialist movement. 

Mr: Hays. Back in 1905. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. Some of the background extends further back 
than that, but that is a definite identifiable date. 

Mr. Hays. They did a lot of twisting, I assume ? 

Mr. Sargent. They sure did. 

Mr. Hays. We have resisted pretty well for 50 years, haven't we ? 

Mr. Sargent. Have we? 

Mr. Hays. I am asking you. What do you think ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think we departed very materially. Among other 
things, it is plainly asserted and charged today that the doctrine of 
inalienable rights and natural laws as set forth in the Declaration of 
Independence is obsolete. They have accomplished that false belief 
in the American mind. 

Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Sargent, you would not want to take a poll 
down on the street and ask the first 100 people you meet if they believe 

Mr. Sargent. No. I am talking about the slanting of the courts 
and the governmental procedure. 

Mr. Hays. All the courts have been undermined, too ? 

Mr. Sargent, Somewhat, yes. 

Mr. Hays. Congress, too, I suppose? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not going into all that. I am here to give you 
the chronology and facts, Mr. Hays, by documents, and not my per- 
sonal opinions. 

Mr. Hays. Let me tell you just because you say it is so doesn't make 
it a chronology or a fact. 

Mr. Sargent. I am giving the evidence. I state my conclusions as 
set forth here. I am going to cite the books and materials which 
make that position maintainable. 

Mr. Hays. There may have been a fellow by the name of London 
and some others who believed in socialism, but what are you going to 
do about it ? Did they have a right in 1905 — I am not asking as of 
today — to believe in whatever they wanted to believe ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not questioning the right. I am telling what 
they did. I am here to prove the allegation by means of the evidence 
and I would like to go on with it. 

Mr. Hays. You were satisfied to distribute that statement of yours 
to the press, and I am not going to be satisfied until I find out a bit 
more about it until I find out how you picked these sentences 

Mr. Sargent. I am here for the purpose of proving it. 

The Chairman. Most of the sentence to which you refer was re- 
peated in the statement which he has made. Mr. Sargent has a 


presentation to mike. The chairman's feeling is that it would be 
helpful and it would be in the interest of conservation of time and 
orderly procedure, I do not mean without interruption, if he would 
be permitted to proceed in a reasonably orderly manner to complete 
his testimony. There are numerous questions which I am sure that 
I for one will want to ask him as we go along or later. But if we 
move along, I think it would be in the interest of good procedure. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this, that the thing that 
concerns me is : If such a thing has happened, that is one thing. I 
would like to be specific about it, and I am going to continue object- 
ing to this kind of presentation. Let me read why : "They organized 
an attack on patriotism. They sought to create a blackout in history. 
They introduced a new and revolutionary philosophy. As early, as 
1892 they sought to establish" — this has all been handed out to the 
press with an awful lot of pronouns in there. What I want to know 
is who are these people. Let us start from the beginning and name 
names and do it right. 

The Chairman. That is what I would like to know. I would like 
for him to proceed with his statement and see if we can find out. 

Mr. Sargent. I will give you exactly that information chronologi- 
cally on the basis of books by going through this thing. I can't answer 
your questions in one sentence. 

Mr. Hays. No, but your statement to the press, Mr. Sargent — and 
you won't sit there and deny it — was deliberately designed to create 
an impression that education all has got an odor about it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hays 

Mr. Hays. You can hammer all you please, but you are not going 
to shut the minority up. You have mimeographed statements but 
you are not going to silence me. 

The Chairman. I am not trying to silence anyone. 

Mr. Hays. You are not going to, either. 

The Chairman. I want to take the responsibility myself for a state- 
ment being prepared for the press. I am the one who insisted on it. 
Mr. Sargent knew nothing about it. The members of the staff did 
not prefer to do it, and I suggested that I thought it ought to be done 
even at great inconvenience to the staff. 

Mr. Hays. Who wrote it ? 

The Chairman. As to that, I do not know. It was mimeographed, 
I am sure, at the instance of the staff. 

Mr. Sargent. The statement was prepared by me by request. I did 
not originate the idea of having one. I did it because I was present 
at your hearing the other day 

The Chairman. The responsibility for the statement being given 
out to the press is the chairman's. 

Mr. Hays. All right. It is the chairman's. 

The Chairman. He did not know there was any or could be any 
controversy on that phase of it, I might add. 

Mr. Hays. You do not realize how easily you can get into a 
controversy with me. 

Mr. Sargent. I was here the other day, Mr. Hays, and I heard your 
request that statements be furnished, and I assumed I was furthering 
your wishes in the matter. 

Mr. Hays. You: sure would, if I had the statement at 10 o'clock or 5 
minutes until 10. ■ 


Mr. Sargent. I prepared it, as I understood you wanted statements 

Mr. Hays. I have said repeatedly that I am not blaming you. The 
point I am making, and I want to make it perfectly clear, is this : I 
have tried to insist from the very first meeting we had that this thing 
be conducted objectively and in the interest, to use your own terms, 
Mr. Chairman, of orderly procedure. There have been a lot of people 
and a lot of organizations and a lot of institutions that have had a lot 
of things said about them, both by written statements and in the hear- 
ings. I haven't heard any of them. I have not been able to get a com- 
mitment that any specific one of these people is going to be allowed 
to come in and tell his story. You know what happened in the 
McCarthy hearings. They kept Stevens on the stand for 14 days until 
they wore him out and wore the public out, and they got one impres- 
sion across to the people's minds, and the other side is not going to 
get into the papers unless it is a lot more sensational than I think it is 
going to be. This is the same technique. We will put out the sensa- 
tional accusations and get it in the paper on page 1, and if they are not 
true, if these people come in, that will get on page 16, and who is going 
to read it anyway. 

The Chairman. The chairman has stated that he has not made any 
plans about publicity. He has not been interested in that phase of it. 
What he is interested in is developing the facts with the view of the 
facts ultimately forming the basis of a report. It is the long-range 
results that the chairman is interested in and he has made no efforts— 
and I am sure the members of the press will bear me out in this — to 
try to get over to the press any idea, preconceived or otherwise. I 
am sure that some of the press have looked at the chairman somewhat 
critically because of his failure to give information about the commit- 
tee. I wanted to wait until the facts were developed and let the press 
develop its own view. The chairman has certainly not tried to pub- 
licize himself. He does not care whether his name is ever in the paper. 
As far as publicity is concerned, I have reached the period in my life 
where I am not looking for publicity, I am not looking for any clients, 
and not looking for anything further in the way of personal advance- 
ment. The chairman is interested in only one thing, and that is help- 
ing this committee do a good job, which I think the country is inter- 
ested in. I am not going to lose my patience. I do not have any time 
to spare, but I am going to take whatever time is necessary in order 
to do what I can toward helping accomplish the job. 

I want to provide every opportunity for the views which occur to 
you as we go along to be advanced, Mr. Hays. 

Myself, I am very much interested in getting the story which Mr. 
Sargent, who has now for some 15 years been intimately associated 
with on this whole subject, and the proof which he might or might 
not have to support what he has to say. I am not accepting what he 
has to say as being factual until he has completed his statement, and 
I see what he has to support it. 

Mrs. Pfost. Mr. Chairman, since we have this report here before us, 
this release, I wonder if I might ask Mr. Sargent a couple of questions 
that are embodied in the release ? 
The Chairman. Yes. 


Mrs. PfoSt. I notice on the bottom of page 1 and carries on to 
page 2 : 

As early as 1892 they sought to establish the Federal income tax in order to 
pave the way for national Federal socialism. 

This statement would indicate that you feel that the Federal income 
tax has brought about socialism, and that it is a socialistic procedure. 

Mr. Sargent. I think it has had a tremendously powerful effect in 
doing exactly that in two ways. One way is placing very, very large 
amounts of money at the disposal of the Federal Government to spend, 
and the other way is the resultant control which it has had upon the 
people. At the national level, a general socialistic program would be 
impossible without that tax. 

Mrs. Pfost. Do you think we should not have a Federal income tax? 

Mr. Sargent. I think the power of the Federal Government to tax 
income should be very strictly reduced in order to prevent the invasion 
of the sovereignty of the States, and let the States do it. I think it is. 
The average workingman works 1 day a week to pay this tax. It is 
a soak-the-people tax as it is operating now. 

Mrs. Pfost. It is what ? 

Mr. Sargent. Soak, soaking the people and subjecting them to the 
power of the Federal Government. 

Mrs. Pfost. Then you would eliminate completely the Federal 
income tax and allow the States to take care of their taxes ? 

Mr. Sargent. I would not eliminate it completely. I would put 
a ceiling on it, and not have the Federal Government absorb most of 
the available revenues. Let the States spend their own money where 
the people can control the projects at a local level and not be subjected 
to Washington. 

Mrs. Pfost. What would you do when these emergencies arise, such 
as we have had — war emergencies ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am thinking of the tax-limitation proposal ad- 
vanced by others, which includes an emergency clause allowing higher 
taxes to cover defense or other emergency. 

Mrs. Pfost. Then you would still have to revert back to a Federal 
income tax to take care of national emergencies. 

Mr. Sargent. When the emergency was over, the tax would go 
back to the limited rate. However, that is not germane to what I am 
presenting here. 

Mrs. Pfost. It will be one of those things which is going out to 
the press today. To me it is an insinuation that the Federal income tax 
paves the way for national Federal socialism, and certainly we have 
Federal income tax today, and I wanted to clarify whether or not 
you believe the Federal income tax is a socialistic measure. 

Mr. Sargent. I. can add another point. If you will look at the 
Federal budget in 1892, when this tax was first proposed, you will 
find the Federal Government did not need any such revenue at all. It 
did not need a tax of this kind for its fiscal purposes at all. The Fed- 
eral budget was very low. The Federal Government always had the 
power to tax inheritances. The courts sustained that. Here we have 
a case where a tax capable of this great abuse was actively proposed 
and put over when there was no money need for the tax. 

There was some other reason. In the light of developments, there 
are many, including myself, that ascribe an entirely different purpose 


to it. The purpose being to pave the way for Federal control on a 
very, very broad scale. It occurred at a time when this Socialist 
movement was moving in. My conclusion is that it was done for 
that purpose, and I think that is a correct assumption. 

Mrs. Pfost. In other words, you are practically saying that you 
feel that the Federal income tax is used for furthering socialistic 

Mr. Sargent. It is establishing that; yes. Without the Federal 
income tax, national socialism in the United States would be prac- 
tically impossible to accomplish. The Government could not do it. 
The abuse of the tax power is one of the most serious things we 
have had here in altering our entire balance in government. It has 
made the States paupers and compelled them to come to Washington 
to get their money and submit to the conditions imposed on them to 
get their own money back. 

Mr. Hats. That is a pretty broad statement without much founda- 

Mr. Sargent. You ask 

Mr. Hats. I am not going to ask anybody. My State didn't have 
a nickel of bonded debt until last year. It is against the State con- 
stitution, so it was not a pauper. But there is a way they can go 
into debt if they want to, and that is by vote of the people. So all 
through the years instead of building roads by selling bonds, as 
North Carolina did, the people of Ohio have chosen not to do that, 
but come down to get the money from the Federal Government when 
they could. They didn't come as paupers. So last year they decided 
in their wisdom by an overwhelming vote— and I didn't think it was 
such a good idea then and it may turn out it is not yet — but the people 
voted, they bonded the State for half a billion dollars to build the 
roads, but they did it by vote of the people. 

Mr. Sargent. You had in Taft a great American who has repre- 
sented some of the philosophy I speak of. 

Mr. Hats. Taft was a great American, and you and I can agree on 
that. He was one of the great Americans of all time and knowing him 
as I did, if he were sitting here today, he would be just as bored with 
this procedure as I am. 

To get back to your statement, you are making the flat assertion 
here that the income tax started out as a Socialist plot to destroy 
the Government. That is what your statement says. 

Mr. Sargent. It had that purpose on the part of the Socialists who 
advocated it, yes ; that is my opinion. 

Mr. Hats. But your statement implies, if it does not flatly say, 
that the people who passed the income tax were involved in this. 

Mr. Sargent. The people did hot think that. They thought they 
were buying something else. They found out later they were buying 
a larger package than they had any idea. 

Mr. Hats. The people can stop the tax and repeal it. 

Mr. Sargent. They can do it by constitutional amendment. 

Mr. Hats. They can do it by changing the Members of Congress 
in a democracy. 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. 

Mr. Hats. If this were a great Socialistplot and they thought they 
were being robbed, they could change the Congress. 


■ ;?Mt. Sargent. I ajm nowhere to diseuss the political science problem 
involved in the tax. 

Mr. Hats. You are here saying this. 

Mr. Sargent. I am pointing out that the circumstance can be 
weighed properly in the light of the history of the time which I am 
proposing to give you, dates and circumstances, so you can integrate 
the relationship of this pattern. 

Mr. Hays. But it is your opinion that the income tax was first 
introduced as a result of a socialist plot. 

Mr. Sargent. I think the radicals of that period had precisely that 
in mind, yes. 

Mr. Hays. Do you have any other legislation that you think cam© 
about as a result of a socialist plot ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know of anything in particular at this time 
that occurs to me. I am talking about the broad pattern and not the 
whole series of legislative enactments. I don't think that is pertinent 
to your inquiry here. 

Mr. Hays. It is pertinent in view of this statement to ask you if 
you think that people should be taxed according to their ability 
to pay. 

Mr. Sargent. I said the Federal Government's power to do it. 
The States have that power. I am talking about the Federal Govern- 
ment's power to do the taxing and to control the States through this 
type of thing. 

Mr. Hays. You have implied here that you have a great deal of 
reverence for the Constitution. The Constitution gave the Federal 
Government certain powers to tax. 

Mr. Sargent. I am talking about the 16th amendment power to 
tax the people without limit. 

Mr. Hays. But that is part of the Constitution, is it not ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. Put in there in a constitutional manner. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, and I am saying that constitutional proposal 
as far as the radicals were concerned was deliberate to make Federal 
national taxation a possibility. 

Mr. Hays. They started out on the 16th amendment to make Federal 
national socialism. 

Mr. Sargent. I think that was part of the scheme. I am talking 
about the Federal tax. 

Mrs. Pfost. The reason I am asking you this, Mr. Sargent, is 
because the news release has been given, and I thought it should be 
explored and clarified before we adjourn today. The last para- 
graph— — 

Mr. Sargent. On page 2 or page 1 ? 

Mrs. Pfost. On page 2. I might go back to "Eventually," the last 
sentence of the first paragraph on page 2 : 

Eventually, the judicial power itself was to be undermined by "court packing" 
and by attacks calculated to make the courts subject to control by the Executive. 
Education is one of the vital areas involved in this attack on the American 
system of government. The field includes not only elementary and secondary 
schools, but also our colleges and universities. The tax-exempt foundations are 
directly Involved because they have supported this movement in the past, and 
are still promoting it. * * * 


You feel that the foundations are directly involved in supporting 
this type of thing. You are making that allegation with regard to the 
educational system in America. 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. 

Mrs. Pfost. And you say that the history of this movement is a 
record of the greatest betrayal that ever occurred in American history. 

Mr. Sargent. I think that is a correct statement. 

Mrs. Pfost. Do you feel that these tax-exempt foundations are 
knowingly placing their money in the hands of and stimulating this 
type of socialistic method ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think they are doing it on purpose, yes, deliberately. 
There is such a record of continuous notice, failure to do anything 

The Chairman. I am very anxious to get his testimony. 

Mr. Sargent. I can answer this much more fully. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, if some of the spectators can't keep still 
I suggest you get the sergeant at arms to clear them out. I am tired 
of the whispered advice. 

Mr. Sargent. May I say it is difficult to answer fully and clearly 
questions like this because it includes evidence I am going to put in. 
After the evidence is in, I can answer you much better. 

Mrs. Pfost. I realize that, but I was thinking that with this type 
of statement going out, perhaps we were enlarging on that one phase 
of it and could get some direct answers. 

Mr. Sargent. I will elaborate further. It is my opinion that the 
Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations are guilty of violation 
of the antitrust laws and should be prosecuted. I have evidence I 
am going to present here on that subject and court decisions. I think 
they are violating the prohibition against restraint of trade, and that 
this is being done on purpose. 

Mr. Hays. Why don't you turn that evidence over to the Attorney 
General % 

Mr. Sargent. You can decide what to do with it after you have the 

Mr. Hays. This committee is not going to decide what to do with 
it. If you want my opinion, the committee ought to dispense right 
now without more of this. 

Mr. Sargent. I am here on subpena to give you the facts. I would 
like to do it. 

Mr. Hays. I am going to explore this statement of yours to try to 
get some facts about it, if I can. 

Mr. Sargent. My answer is that I think this was done on purpose 
and knowingly. 

Mr. Hays. You say, "Eventually the judicial power itself was to 
be undermined by court-packing"; just how were the courts packed? 

Mr. Sargent. By the Roosevelt proposal of 1937 in February, and 
the attacks on the judiciary which preceded it. 

Mr. Hays. It didn't pass. 

Mr. Sargent. No, but there was a continuous policy of loading 
judicial appointments for years with men of a specific philosophy and 
discriminating against others who held counterphilosophy. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, the courts were loaded all the 20 years 
the Democrats were in with Democrats; that is a very unusual 


Mr. Sargent. I am not talking about Democrats. I am talking 
about men having a philosophy similar to that which actuated the 
so-called left-wing group. 

Mr. Hays. The courts have been loaded a little bit along the way 
by the present Chief Executive. He appointed the Chief Justice. 
Perhaps the most significant social decision the courts ever handed 
down has been the one they handed down last week, and with all of 
this packing of these peculiar people they came up with a unanimous 

Mr. Sargent. I am not talking about that decision. 

The Chairman. You do not mean to say that the President is trying 
to pack the courts ? 

Mr. Hays. I am not accusing him of anything. 

Mr. Sargent. In 1936 in October, before the Presidential election, 
a group of educators sponsored and printed and put in the hands of 
American schoolchildren a schoolbook advocating a plan to pack the 
Supreme Court of the United States. I say that is a deliberate attack 
on the judiciary, in the educational system, and I have the evidence. 

Mr. Hays. You say that was a deliberate attack on the judiciary. 
Do you realize that the Supreme Court has not always been composed 
of nine members % There was one time when it had more. Was that 
an attack on somebody ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think my answer, Mr. Hays, is this - 

Mr. Hays. In other words, anybody who disagrees with you and 
your very peculiar beliefs, as I have seen them outlined here, is attack- 
ing the system ; is that right? 

Mr. -Sargent. I want to answer your question; yes. I think the 
Senate Judiciary Committee finding that this court-packing bill was 
dangerous and unparalleled is sufficient justification for my state- 
ment. The unanimous report of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
You asked me for my authority. I have in my possession a schoolbook 
advocating the court-packing plan and putting it in the elementary, 
and I think it was the secondary classrooms in those days before the 
presidential election, and before the Congress of the United States 
got the court-packing bill. 

Mr. Hays. All right, that happened. 

Mr, Sargent. Yes, 

Mr. Hays. I was not here when you say it happened. 

Mr. Sargent. It proves educators did it, does it not ? 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but I will have to ask 
some person be put out if they cannot refrain from heckling. I admit 
there are a lot of people who do not agree with me and that is all right. 

Mr. Sargent. May I again request leave to follow my testimony? 

The Chairman. I was going to ask that the spectators be careful not 
to make interjections. 

Mr. Hays. I do not mind it for a day or two, but this has been 
going on with one person since the hearing started. I do not know 
whom she represents and where she comes from, and she has a right to 
her opinion, and she has a right to write me a letter, but I do not want 
any hand and arm signals. 

Mr. Hays. To go back to one other thing, do you agree to any 
change ? It has been advocated for a long time in textbooks and other- 
wise that the voting age should be lowered to 18. Do you find any- 
thing significantly wrong with that ? 


Mr. Sargent. I have never thought much about it. It is not within 
the scope of what I am presenting here. I don't really know. 

Mr. Hats. Of course, it is within the scope, because you are infer- 
ring that because somebody suggested that maybe 11 would be a better 
number than 9 that is un-American. 

Mr. Sargent. No, I am talking about the use of foundations and. the 
educational system for partisan political purposes which has been 
done and which I am prepared to prove. That is what I am here for. 

Mr. Hays. Do you think that lowering the age limit to 18 is a 
partisan political purpose ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think for an educational system to advocate it is 
lobbying and prohibited by statute ; yes. 

Mr. Hays. You don't think a teacher in a classroom would not have 
a right to bring it up in a class of American Government and get some 
discussion and opinion? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a 
foundation promoting that concept with its money. Congress said 
it should not be done under section 101, and I understand you are 
here to get evidence of that kind, that they have actively promoted 

Mr. Hays. Do you think if a foundation gave somebody money to 
advocate it in a book that that would be bad ? 

Mr. Sargent. If the book was objective; no. Slanted, presentations 
of issues is prohibited here. Suppression of the right of critical 
analyses of scholarly findings is definitely an infringement of your 

Mr. Hays. Do you believe that through any book that I happen to 
hand you or I could go through any book on the subject you hand me 
and delete paragraphs here and there, that would make it slanted any 
way we wanted to slant it? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not talking about deleting paragraphs. I am 
talking about a consistent policy of always supporting one side of the 
controversy and never doing anything in support of the other. That is 

Mrs. Pfost. You feel that the foundations have used their money 
to that extent ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think definitely they have. I think that is the mix 
of this matter. 

_ Mrs. Pfost. You think they have not used their money on construc- 
tive books, but they will give out great donations on the subversive 
type of literature and further that type of printing entirely ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. I am convinced of it. In fact, I have been 
told that by people in the profession. Prof. John C. Almack, formerly 
of the Stanford School of Education, told me one time that it is a waste 
of time trying to get any money from the foundations for the conserva- 
tive side of these issues. That it could not be done. He was an experi- 
enced educator. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. Thank you. 

Here, then, briefly, is a chronology of the subversive movement as, 
first of all, general background material. I will commence by talking 
about the Fabian Socialist movement in Great Britain. I have notes 
here. The data on this first sheet is taken from a source book which 
I think is a recognized and able authority. It is the book entitled 


"Fabianism in the [Life of Great Britain" ; the author is Sister Mar- 
garet Patricia Mcdarran, the daughter of Senator McCarran. It is a 
doctoral thesis resulting in the granting of her degree of doctor of 
philosophy. It is a very extensive book based on original source 

Mr. Hays. You say she is a sister ? 

Mr. Sargent. She is a member of a Catholic order. 

Mr. Hays. I didn't know they used her last name. 

Mr. Sargent. That is her full name. Her full name appears on 
the book and that is who she is. I have read the book myself. 

I am taking significant dates here to orient the British movement 
with the American side of the picture. The inception of the move- 
ment was the year 1883 ; an original Fabian group formed, composed 
of Thomas Davidson, Edward R. Pease, and Hubert Bland. They 
met in London and adopted an agreement to reconstitute society and 
they adopted the name "Fabian." 

The Fabian system briefly consisted of four elements. Research, 
to further their specific ideas; education of a propaganda type to 
carry it out ; penetration of governmental agencies generally, legisla- 
tive and executive both ; and, finally, penetration carried to the point 
of permeation resulting in complete control of the governmental 

The following year, 1884, George Bernard Shaw joined the move- 
ment and became, and was active, for many, many years subsequently. 
In 1885 Sydney Webb, Sydney Olivier, and Anna Besant became 
members. They established a publication known as the Fabian News 
in 1891. 

In 1892 they began active lecturing and campaigning. They elected 
a member of Parliament that year. They moved into the university 
field in 1895 and established a unit at Oxford. They founded the 
London School of Economics 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, that is all a matter of history. We know 
about those characters. They have been pretty well discredited down 
through the years. Nobody is paying much attention to them. Do 
you think it is fair to waste our time ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think it is fair. They have not been discredited 
and they have not stopped. There is substantial evidence that the 
successors of that group are very intimately connected with American 
affairs right now. 

Mr. Hays. I have heard that charge bandied about for a good many 
years, but it only results in somebody saying so. Nobody has ever 
pinned it down. It finally boils down to, "well, he disagrees with me, 
so therefore he is no good." 

Mr. Sargent. Won't you wait until I get through before you con- 
clude that ? Maybe you will change your mind. 

Mr. Hays. I will tell you, the way you are going, some of the stuff 
you are bringing in, I don't know whether you are ever going to get 

Mr. Sargent. If you will help me I will get there as fast as I can. 

By 1900 the movement had entered four of the universities in Great 
Britain. I have referred to the Federal income tax movement here. 
That began in 1892 with a demand for Federal income tax legislation 
made at a time when the fiscal needs of the Federal Government re- 
quired no such taxation. Some political objective must have been 


behind the move at the time because the revenue need was not there. 
In 1893 the Income Tax Act was passed and then repassed over a Pres- 
idential veto. In 1894, the United States Supreme Court held the 
statute unconstitutional of the basis of the Constitution as it then 

The agitation continued. In 1909 Congress proposed the income 
tax amendment to the States and in 1913 it was adopted as the 16th 
amendment to the Federal Constitution. Unlimited tax power was 
conferred. The effect was as I mentioned. 

Mr. Hats. You say that was proposed in 1909 ? 

Mr. Sargent. The amendment was proposed in 1909. 

Mr. Hays. That took a vote of the Congress ? 

Mr. Sargent. That is right, it was voted. 

Mr. Hats. Do you have any breakdown of how many on each poli- 
tical party party voted on that ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know. I presume it was substantial. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, both parties had already been indoc- 
trinated with this socialism as early as 1909 ? 

Mr. Sargent. I didn't say that. 

Mr. Hats. You say right here in your statement you handed out to 
the press that this was a plot to establish the Federal income tax in 
order to pave the way for national Federal socialism. 

Mr. Sargent. I say the radical group had that in mind. The people 
had a more immediate situation at hand. There were great abuses 
in that period that we are all familiar with and reform of some type 
was undoubtedly due and needed. 

The conclusion I adopt is that a normal American movement for 
reform was perverted by the introduction of various things which 
were accepted and which became dangerous in practice and made our 
present situation what it is. There was a political purpose behind 
this amendment obviously. The money was not needed. The idea 
was to give the Federal Government the power to take money. The 
power to take money was given. The power to take money became a 
very important part in what followed. 

That is all fact. That is well known. 

Mr. Hats. Some of it is fact; 

Mr. Sargent. It is a fact the Government didn't need the money. 
Look at the budget. It is a fact that that unlimited power was con- 
ferred. It is a fact that subsequently there has been a very extensive 
use of that power. It is also a fact that without this power socializing 
of the United States would have been well nigh impossible. 

Mr. Hays. Was the Government in debt in 1909 ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't think it had very much. The Civil War 
was pretty much off the books and the budget was very low. The 
Spanish- American War was more or less a picnic. It only lasted a 
short time and the cost was not great. 

Mr. Hays. We ought to mimeograph that and send it out to the 
Spanish-American veterans. 

Mr. Sargent. In the financial sense it was not costly. It lasted a 
short time. Financially I am speaking of. It was not an expensive 
war, and we had a period of very great prosperity and plenty of 

From the educational standpoint, the story begins about 1896 with 
the establishment of the Dewey Laboratory School at the University 


of Chicago. That school continued until 1903. The Dewey in ques- 
tion here is the professor of philosophy, John Dewey, who expounded 
a principle which has become destructive of traditions and has created 
the difficulties and the confusion, much of it, that we find today. 
Professor Dewey denied that there was any such thing as absolute 
truth, that everything was relative, everything was doubtful, perma- 
nently doubtful, that there were no basic values and nothing which 
was specifically true. 

The concept was revolutionary in practice. I don't know what 
the good professor thought of his reasons, but the effect of it was to 
undermine existing props and to make possible the specific thing I 
refer to here, because as soon as you say there are no basic principles 
at all, that everything is debatable and uncertain, changeable from 
day to day, you automatically wipe the slate clean, you throw his- 
torical experience and background to the wnnd and you begin all over 
again, which is just exactly what the Marxians want someone to do. 
Therefore, John Dewey was a gift from the gods to the radicals. 
He was just taiiormade for this sort of situation. I haven't the 
faintest idea of what Dewey himself thought he was doing. I am 
merely saying it happens and had this effect. 

Mr. Hays. You would not think there is anything unusual in a 
professor of philosophy coming up with some crackpot theory like 

Mr. Sargent. I would think it is somewhat significant and unusual 
when a long parade of other people back up the man and make it 
the guiding philosophy of an educational system. 

Mr. Hays. You would not say that there ought not to be any new 
ideas of research in any educational system ? 

Mr. Sargent. No; I didn't say that. 

Mr. Hays. You say that any time we break with tradition we are 
automatically getting into something bad. 

Mr. Sargent. I am saying it is generally agreed by philosophers 
that this philosophy of John Dewey was extremely destructive in 
practice and made it possible to accomplish the things that were later 
done. It brought aboiit the policy of attacking the American tradi- 
tion. They attacked patriotism. 

Mr. Hays. Let me try to tie that down with an example here. 
You say attack American tradition. There was a tradition around 
the time of Civil War that it was perfectly all right for you to buy 
your way out of the Army. I think the fee was $300. 

Mr. Sargent. That is an American tradition ? 

Mr. Hays. It was then. It was very reputable and nobody ques- 
tioned it and everybody did it. 

Mr. Sargent. That is not what I mean by the word "tradition." 

Mr. Hays. It is hard to keep words in context and define them. 

Mr. Sargent. Tradition as in the Declaration of Independence. 
That is a statute passed by the Congress and is a basic document. The 
principle of the Declaration of Independence was directly undermined 
and attacked by the philosophy of John Dewey. 

Mr. Hays. Another document that you keep citing, and a very 
valuable document, is the Constitution. Did the Constitution have 
any reference to slavery at all in the beginning? 

Mr. Sargent. Of course it did. You know that. Until 1808. 

Mr. Hays. That was part of the tradition ? 


Mr. Sargent. No. I don't use tradition in that sense. Every sec- 
tion of the Constitution is not a tradition by any manner of means. 
I mean the essentials. 

Mr. Hats. What are you going to do, pick the traditions and the 
rest is not according to your definition ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, I am going to talk about the essential rights of 
human beings. Most people agree on what that stuff is. 

One of the most fundamental concepts of all is the doctrine of in- 
alienable rights, the fact that your rights belong to you and my rights 
belong to me and are not given to me by any majority in society; 
that we acquire those rights at birth and we get them by natural law 
or the laws of God. 

Mr. Hays. I will go along with you. That is the first time today 
that you and I have been able to specifically get something down in a 
definition that both of us could agree on. 

Mr. Sargent. All right. Dewey throws that out. He said not even 
that one. That is overboard, too. 

The philosophy of John Dewey is a natural for radicalism because 
it makes everything uncertain and the subject of confusion. They 
deny there are such things as natural rights. They say that rights 
are whatever the majority say, here today and gone tomorrow. Sort 
of an off -again, on- again Flannigan affair. 

Mr. Hats. You believe in laissez-faire ? 

Mr. Sargent. What do you mean by that term ? 

Mr. Hats. It is generally used in the same term. You know the 
definition of it. Let-alone theory, that the Government should not 

Mr. Sargent. No ; I don't think there should be a complete want of 
governmental restraint. Anarchy would be the result of it. 

Mr. Hats. There has been testimony before these hearings that 
there has been a plot to do away with the laissez-faire theory. 

Mr. Sargent. That word has been booted around to a great extent. 
Like "democracy," it has been picked up by all the Communist fronts 
and they throw it all over the place until the word is almost useless 
for any practical purposes. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, laissez-faire, democracy, or any other 
word has certain limitations ? 

Mr. Sargent. Some of those words have. Natural law means a 
very specific thing. I say that John Dewey's philosophy struck a 
mortal blow at natural law and that is the cement which holds this 
country of ours together from the standpoint of religion, philosophy, 
and governmental policy. 

Mr. Hats. You and I both apparently agree that John Dewey's 
philosophy is not the kind of philosophy with w T hich we would asso- 
ciate ourselves. 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. Definitely. I think it is a very de- 
structive thing and very unfortunate. 

Mr. Hats. But you would not say that John Dewey did not have a 
right to believe that and to advocate it? 

Mr. Sargent. No. All these people had a right to advocate these 
things. But the foundations didn't have a right to step in and actively 
promote one theory and throw the rest overboard. 

Mr. Hats. Up to now you say the foundations did that and threw 
the other one overboard ? 


Mr. Sargent. I will get to that. That comes into the picture. I am 
giving you the historical background first. I will be talking about 
foundations very shortly. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. On the basis of these principles John Dewey estab- 
lished this laboratory school at the University of Chicago in 1896 
and conducted experimental education. He continued until 1903. 

Teachers College, which has become subsequently identified with 
much of the conditions to which we will refer, became affiliated with 
Columbia in 1898. 

In 1902, John D. Rockefeller established his first foundation known 
as General Education Board. From the standpoint of contemporary 
affairs, that was just 1 year before the first Russian revolution, at- 
tempted under Lenin, when they adopted the principles of Karl Marx. 
There was violence, and in Russia at that particular time there were 
threats which broke out in 1905 after Russia lost the war with Japan. 

The writers of this period were discussing many conditions which 
were obviously bad and should be condemned. In 1904, for example, 
Robert Hunter wrote his book entitled "Poverty," Steffens wrote about 
The Shame of the Cities, Tarbell wrote the book The History of the 
Standard Oil Company at about the same time. In 1905, Charles 
Evans Hughes made his investigation of life insurance scandals in 
New York. 

The point is that the country at the time was in a very active con- 
dition of flux due to these many influences which I think we are 
familiar with. 

Jack London writes in 1905 in War of the Classes explaining how 
he became a Socialist. In the same vear John Dewey became pro- 
fessor of philosophy at Columbia University and brought his concept 
into that university. 

Now we come to the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. My authority 
here is a publication of that organization itself, which relates the 
facts regarding its formation. This is published by the League for 
Industrial Democracy, which is the successor of the old Intercollegiate 
Socialist Society. The pamphlet is entitled "Thirty-five Years of 
Educational Pioneering, L. I. D. Celebrates Past Achievements and 
Asks Where Do We Go From Here ?" 

Mr. Hays. When was that published ? 

Mr. Sargent. It relates to the original history of the movement; 
copyright notice is 1941. It was a meeting they held to discuss their 
own history and background and recites what happened. 

The meeting which is reported on by this pamphlet, as the pamphlet 
states, was held on Thursday evening, November 28, 1941, at their 
35th anniversary dinner at the Hotel Edison in New York City. There 
were three or four hundred members and guests present. 

One of the main speakers was John Dewey, president of the League 
for Industrial Democracy, who is referred to here as one of the fore- 
most educators and philosophers. Harry W. Laidler, the executive' 
director of the league was among those present. Harry W. Laidler's 
speech gives an exact copy of the original call issued for the formation 
of this prior group in 1905 and reads as follows. The heading is Call 


for an Intercollegiate Socialist Society and the main body reads as 
follows : 

In the opinion of the undersigned, the recent remarkable increase in the 
Socialist vote in America should serve as an indication to the educated men 
and Women in the country that socialism is a thing concerning which it is no 
longer wise to be indifferent. 

Mr. Hays. When was this written ? 

Mr. Sargent. This was the original notice of 1905 being reported. 
At the subsequent anniversary dinner they put in their copy of the 
original notice of formation which I am reading. 

The undersigned, regarding its aims and fundamental principles with sym- 
pathy, and believing in them will ultimately be found the remedy for many 
far-reaching economic evils, proposed organizing an association to be known 
as the intercollegiate Socialist Society for College Men and Women, Graduate 
and Undergraduate, through the formation of study clubs in the colleges and 
universities, and the encouraging of all legitimate endeavors to awaken an 
interest in socialism among the educated men and women of the country. 

Signers of the call for the meeting are : Oscar Lovell Triggs, Thomas 
Wentworth Higginson, Charlotte Perkins Oilman, Clarence Dar- 
row, William English Walling, G. Phelps Stokes, B. O. Flower, 
Leonard D. Abbott, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. 

The article goes on to state that the meeting was organized as a 
result of this call and held on the top floor of Peck's Restaurant, 140 
Fulton Street, New York City, on the afternoon, September 12, 1905. 

Further on in the article it relates that in the year 1906 in pur- 
suance of this plan. Jack London took a spectacular trip among col- 
leges. That was in early 1906. It says that in scores of colleges 
the speakers of this organization presented to students the challenge 
of a new social order. It refers to present day leaders of thought in 
the movement, including Paul Douglas, Isadore Lubin, and a number 
of others here. 

Mr. Hays. Let us have them all. 

Mr. Sargent. All right. Bruce Bliven, Freda Kirchwey, Paul 
Douglas, Kenneth Macgowan, Isador Lubin, Evans Clark, Devere 
Allen, John Temple Graves, Jr., Mary Fox, Carl Llewllyn, Broadus 
Mitchell, Abraham Epstein, Otto S. Beyer, Theresa Wolfson. and a 
host of others at Stanford, Barnard, Columbia, Harvard, Clark, Am- 
herst, Oberlin, Princeton, Vassar, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Pittsburgh, 
Illinois, Wisconsin, and other colleges. I read that without para- 

Mr. Hays. What were they doing ? 

Mr. Sargent. It says here that many of these people were among 
the active members of Intercollegiate Socialist Society college chap- 
ters during those days. In other words, these names relate to the 
early activities of the group. 

Mr. Hays. That was 1906? 

Mr. Sargent. You can't say exactly, Mr. Hays, because they are 
referring to the early days. He does not peg this particular thing as 
a date. It was during the early period as this pamphlet would indi- 
cate, in any event. 

Mr. Hays. It seems to me you might have missed the most signficant 
thing in that whole thing. You have not emphasized it. You said 
when you started out somewhere along in there that the significant 
size of the Socialist vote must convince of one thing or another. That 


was back around 1905. I don't know what the Socialist vote was in 
1905, but I will wager in proportion to the population it was lower 
than now. 

Mr. Sargent. I have no idea. That statement appeared in the 
call of the notice. 

Mr. Hays. Don't you think you are right ? 

Mr. Sargent. I would not want to hazard a guess. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, you are getting pretty excited about 
something here that has proved over the years 1905 to 1954 that it 
didn't have enough drive of its own to survive. 

The Chairman. May I interject? You are making reference of 
that in connection with the 1941 meeting of the LID as I understand. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the pred- 
ecessor for the Industrial League for Democracy. 

Mr. Hays. What I am referring to is the original call for the 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. 

The Chairman. May t ask, is the League for Industrial Democracy 
a tax exempt institution ? 

Mr. Sargent. It is my understanding that it is. This was clearly 
a propaganda organization, Mr. Hays. It was formed, as its notice 
shows in the first place, to actively promote a political movement, 
namely, socialism. 

Mr. Hays. I am not arguing with you, sir, that it was not a propa- 
ganda Organization or anything of the kind. It probably was. 

The thing that I am trying to find out is how much significance 
did it have and whether it ever had any effect or not. 

Mr. Sargent. I think it had a great deal of significance. Not in 
the Socialist Party vote, but in making its policies effective in other 
ways as the Fabians in Great Britain did. They infiltrated o£her 
parties and worked their will in this fashion. 

They didn't go out and run for election. They used the attack 
system by masquerading under other groups. That is exactly what 
we find in this educational picture. 

This pamphlet I have before me shows that Kobert Morss Lovett 
became the first president of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society 
and you will find from its proceedings that he was identified with 
it for many years. Mr. Lovett has one of the most outstanding 
records of Communist-front affiliation of anyone I have ever seen. 
He belonged to a total of 56 Communist- front organization, this man, 
the president of this particular group here. 

I have the list before me. He belonged at some date or dates 
between this time and the year 1949, to one or more of these various 
organizations, not necessarily, of course, simultaneously. 

Mr. Hays. He is a bad actor, I take it, this fellow Lovett. Are you 
going to read all 56 of those ? 

Mr. Sargent. He is an egghead. He is an educated fool who joins 
anything and is a knockout for propaganda and used this organiza- 
tion obviously for the purpose to which I refer. I think the record 
can properly state something about the character of the people that 
got in here because we are studying propaganda. 

Mr. Hays. If you are going to use the word "egghead," and I have 
no objection to it — it has become a generally accepted term — maybe 

49720 — 54 — pt. 1 15 


we ought to have a definition of it. You use it in a connotation that 
is ridiculous or something of that kind ? 

Mr. Sargent. You want a definition of egghead; all right, I have 
it. It is in an article in a recent magazine. I think I would go for this. 
It is the American Mercury issue of June 1954. 

Mr. Hats. I think you probably would go for anything that the 
Mercury writes. 

Mr. Sargent. The article is by Howard Lord Varney, who has a 
lot of experience, and is called The Egghead Clutch on the Founda- 
tions. You might want to bring that man down here. He seems to 
have a great deal on the ball. 

Mr. Hats. I will tell you if we bring any more down here like some 
we have now I am in favor of the committee hiring a staff psychiatrist. 

Mr. Sargent. I think somebody ought to put a psychiatrist on Bob- 
ert Morss Lovett. 

Mr. Hats. I don't care whether he belonged to all of them. The 
only thing I was interested in was if he belonged to 56, why don't 
you put them in the record % 

Mr. Sargent. I am glad to do that provided it is understood that 
it will be part of my testimony. 

Mr. Hats. Yes. We are trying to save time. If you read 56 Com- 
munist front organizations 

The Chairman. They may go in as part of the record. 

Mr. Sargent. I thought as part of the rule I had to read it or the 
equivalent to get them in. 

Mr. Hats. By agreement we will put them in. 

Mr. Sargent. I have a list in my binder, and give it to the reporter 
to insert. 

( The material referred to is as follows : ) 

References to Robert Morss Lovett, compiled from material furnished by con- 
gressional committees, publications, public records, and other sources 

Appendix IX 
Organisation page Wo. 

National committee, All America Anti-Imperialist League 311 

Signatory, American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom. S3T 
American Committee of Liberals for the Freedom of Mooney and Billings — 339 

Sponsor of American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born_ 349, 354 

Member, American Council on Soviet Relations „ 36J> 

National advisory Board, American Friends of the Chinese People 371, 378 

Sponsor of American Friends of Spanish Democracy — 380-383 

Director, American Fund for Public Service 384 

National vice chairman, American League for Peace and Democracy 390-394, 

397, 401, 404, 409 

Vice chairman, American League Against War and Facism 416, 424, 428 

Signatory, Golden Book of American Friendship with the Soviet Union — 467, 771 

Advisory board, Russian Reconstruction Farms, Inc — _ 472 

Russian War Relief, Inc 476 

Sponsor and advisory board, American Student Union 520, 523 

National advisory board, American Youth Congress 535, 537 

Advisory council, Book Union 589 

Citizens Committee for Harry Bridges 599 

Chicago Ail-American Anti-Imperialist League 606 

Signatory, Committee For a Boycott Against Japanese Aggression 635 

Sponsor of Committee to Defend America by Keeping Out of War 638 

Committee to Save Spain and China 643 

Sponsor of Conference on Constitutional Liberties . 653 

Advisory board, Film Audiences For Democracy . 730 

Friday , 745 

Endorser, Friends of the Soviet Union , 758- 


References to Robert Morss Lovett, compiled from material furnished by con- 
gressional committees, publications, public records, and other sources— Con. 

Appendix IX 
Organisation page No. 

Official, Garland Fund 764 

National committee, International Labor Defense 830 

Speaker, International Workers Order ; 892 

League of American Writers 968, 973 

Advisory committee, League for Mutual Aid 982 

Endorser, American Committee for International Student Congress Against 

War and Fascism 1083 

Chairman, August Peace Parade and Jane Addams Memorial 1103 

National Mooney Council of Action , H42 

Sponsor of Mother Ella Reeve Bloor Banquet.: ; 1164 

USA supporter, National Committee to Aid the Victims of German Fas- 
cism ■■ 1170 

National Committee for the Defense of Political Prisoners 1177 

National Committee for People's Rights ._ 1179 

Signatory, National Emergency Conference 1205, 1207 

National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights 1209, 1214 

Sponsor of National Federation For Constitutional Liberties 1229, 1233 

National People's Committee Against Hearst — 1300* 

Sponsor of National Right-to-Work Congress— — 1308 

Signatory, National Writers Congress _ 1340 

Signatory, New Masses Letter to the President — _ . 1356 

Committee member, Non-Partisan Committee for the Reelection of Con- 
gressman Vito Marcantonio . 1375 

Signer, Open Letter to American Liberals . 1379 

Signer, Open Letter For Closer Cooperation with the Soviet Union — 1384 

Signer, Open Letter Protesting the Ban on Communists in the American 

Civil Liberties Union 1386, 1388 

Advisory editor, Champion of Youth . 1447 

Contributing editor, Science and Society _ 1456 

Arrangements committee, People's Front For Peace 1462 

Contributor, Soviet Russia Today 1603 

Chairman, Chicago Committee For the Struggle Against War 1618 

National committee, Student Congress Against War_ __ 1620 

Signatory, Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade— . — 1651 

Sponsor of the American Pushkin Committee— __, ! J .,_..._.,._. — ___ 1772 

Speaker, Greater Boston Peace Strike Committee . 1780 

Robert Morse Lovett is given as a sponsor of various activities of the American 
Peace Crusade, which was described (statement on the March of Treason, 
February 19, 1951, H. Rept. No. 378, on the Communist "Peace" Offensive, re- 
leased April 1, 1951) as an organization which "the Communists established" as 
"a new instrument for their 'peace' offensive in the United States" ; heralded by 
the Daily Worker "the usual bold headlines reserved for projects in line with 
the Communist objectives." 

The Daily People's World of March 3, 1952, gave him as one of the sponsors 
of the delegation of the National Delegates Assembly for Peace (identified by 
the Daily People's World as a meeting of the American Crusade) who marched 
on Washington, D. C, April 1, 1952. 

According to the Daily Worker of August 20, 1947, Mr. Lovett was cochairman 
of the Call for the Conference of the Committee for Protection of the Foreign 
Born. He signed the organization's letter in behalf of Communist deportation 
cases (Daily Worker, March 4, 1948) ; its statement in behalf of Gerhart Eisler 
(Daily Worker, December 21, 1948) ; and its statement against denaturalization 
(Daily Worker, August 10, 1950). , 

The American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born was cited as 
subversive and Communist by the Attorney General, June 1 and September 21, 
1948, and the special committee cited it as "one of the oldest auxiliaries of the 
Communist Party in the United States (reports March 29, 1944, and June 25, 

Professor Lovett was one of the sponsors of the Cultural and Scientific Con- 
ference for World Peace (National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Profes- 


The Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace was cited as a Com- 
munist front which "was actually a supermobilization of the inveterate wheel- 
horses, and supports of the Communist Party and its auxiliary organizations." 
The National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions was cited as a Com- 
munist-front organization ; and the World Peace Congress was cited as a Com- 
munist front among the "peace" conferences. 

He signed a statement in behalf of the so-called Hollywood Ten (who were 
shown to have affiliation with Communist organizations and to have had Com- 
munist Party registration cards) who refused to affirm or deny membership in 
the Communist Party. 

The Daily Worker (December 31, 1951, August 11, 1952, December 10, 
1952) named him as a speaker at a rally in New York City to "smash the Smith 
Act" ; as signer of a telegram prepared and dispatched by the National Commit- 
tee To Win Amnesty for Smith Act Victims ; and as signatory to an appeal to the 
President requesting amnesty for leaders of the Communist Party who were con- 
victed under the Smith Act. 

According to the Daily Worker of March 2, 1953, after addressing the ninth 
annual dinner at the Jefferson School of Social Science, Professor Lovett asked 
all present to "stand in tribute to two famous Marxist leaders of the United 
States working class—Elizabeth Gurly Flynn and the late Mother Bloor." 

The Jefferson School was cited by the Attorney General as "an adjunct of the 
Communist Party (press release of December 4, 1947) ; special committee report 
No. 1311 of March 29, 1944, states "at the beginning of the present year (1944) 
the old Communist Party Workers School and the School for Democracy were 
merged into the Jefferson School of Social Science." 

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was convicted under the Smith Act on charges of 
conspiring to overthrow the United States Government by force and violence 
(Daily Worker, January 22, 1953). 

Mr. Sargent. Is this your hour of recess ? 

The Ch airman. No ; you may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. Following this movement here, Socialist groups 
sprang up at Columbia, Wesleyan, Harvard, and many other colleges. 
There was a Princeton chapter set up in the year 1907. We find mat 
the changes that began to prevail in the educational policies of some 
of our leading groups became quite prominent around the year 1930. 

Mr. Hays. When you read the list of colleges you got down to one 
in Ohio. What do you mean to imply by reading those names, any- 
thing more than that they had a chapter of Socialists on the campus? 

Mr. Sargent. I am just citing the fact that it organized an active 
chapter on the campus. It is an illustration of the spread of the 
movement very promptly among what are presumably leading univer- 
sities^ I imply nothing beyond that statement. 

Mr. Hats. That college happens to be considered in my State as 
being one of the best colleges' and not only in Ohio, but in the United 
States. It is very expensive. The only reason more people don't 
go to it is because probably they can't afford it. But I never heard 
anything subversive and abnormal about it. I just want to be sure 
that the record does not imply that. 

The Chairman. From what was said, I drew no adverse interest. 

Mr. Sargent. I make no statement one way or another. It is not 
my intention to do so. I was discussing the rather early spread of 
the movement. 

In 1913 — this is interesting because it indicates the way this destruc- 
tive Dewey philosophy began to take hold — in 1913 the National 
Education Association issued a document known as bulletin 41, which 
contained recommendations of the National Education Association 
regarding the teaching of history. I think this is pertinent because 
one of the things involved here has been distortion of history and 
its use for propaganda purposes. 

Mr. Hats. What year was this ? 


Mr. Sargent. 1913. This statement of point of view in that bul- 
letin as printed in our United States Bureau of Education says : 

High school teachers of social studies have the test opportunity ever offered 
to any social group to improve the citizenship of the land. This sweeping 
claim is based upon the fact that the 1% million high school pupils is probably 
the largest group of persons in the world who can be directed to a serious and 
systematic effort, both through study and practice to acquire the social spirit. 

It is not so important that the pupil know how the President is elected or 
that he shall understand the duties of the health officer in his community. The 
time formerly spent in the effort to understand the process of passing a law 
under the President's veto is now to be more preferably used in the observation 
of vocational resources of the community. 

The committee recommends that social studies in the high schol shall include 
community health, housing, homes, human rights versus property rights, im- 
pulsive action of mobs, the selfish conservatism of traditions and public utilities. 

Here you have the inception of the move which became definite later, 
to use the schools for a political objective to modify the social order, 
and therefore to become instruments of propaganda. 

It began as early as 1913. 

Mr. Hays. Let us discuss that a little bit. What is wrong with 
that paragraph you read ? 

Mr. Sargent. It is promoting a particular thing which would obvi- 
ously result in legislative action. 

Mr. Hats. Name it. You see, you have the advantage there. You 
have in front of you everything that you read. I don't. I thought 
I heard some things in there that I didn't think too much wrong if 
they taught a little bit about in schools. For instance, the subject of 
housing might well be something that could be profitably discussed. 

Mr. Sargent. Isn't it propaganda to shift the emphasis from the 
Constitution of the United States to a housing project as a substitute? 

Mr. Hays. We are not talking about housing projects. We are 
talking generally about housing. 

For instance, whether or not bad housing and slum housing has a 
deleterious effect on community life. Do you think that should not 
be mentioned in school at all ? 

Mr. Sargent. At the proper grade level I see no objection if the 
discussion is balanced. I am talking about the shift from the Con- 
stitution to the social things in substitution. 

Mr. Hays. Did you ever teach school, Mr. Sargent? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir, but I have good friends who did and do. . 

Mr. Hays. Do you think it would be possible to j^et an intelligent 
group of high school people together and teach the Constitution with- 
out getting into something besides the context of the subject matter 
in front of them? You are talking about a balanced presentation. 
I have had a good deal of experience with high school students and 
it is pretty difficult not to get both sides of the thing presented in 
the average high school class. 

Mr. Sakgent. It is very hard to get both sides presented as things 
operate now. I am a parent and I have children in the public schools 
and I have had very serious discussions with many people on this. 

Mr. Hays. I disagree with that. 

Mr. Sargent. You were a teacher yourself at one time. 

Mr. Hays. I have a call that we are wanted on the floor, the 
minority, so could we adjourn now? 

The Chairman. We will recess now and resume at 2 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene 
at 2 : 30 p. m. the same day.) 



(The committee reconvened at 2: 30 p. m., upon the expiration of 
the recess.) 


The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. At the time of adjournment, we were at the year 
1913. That is the approximate date of the organization of the Rocke- 
feller Foundation which is the second of the great foundations created 
by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. 

The first one, as you will recall, was General Education Board, 
the organization date of which was 1902. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I hesitate to 
use that word, but I feel I have to. 

I would like to read from the rules of procedure adopted on page 
7 of the first day's hearings : 

(6) Executive hearings: That is the majority of the committee believes that 
the interrogation of the witness in a public hearing might unjustly injure his 
reputation or the reputation of other individuals, the committee shall interro- 
gate such witness in closed or executive session. 

Now, I do not know what the other two members of the committee 
think, but the minority is of the unanimous opinion that this witness 
is going to injure the reputation of other individuals and we feel 
that he should be interrogated first in executive session before all of 
this is spread upon the record and has in the eyes of the public a cer- 
tain validity which it might not be entitled to. 

In support of this point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to 
cite to you the principle about which I argued this morning, namely, 
that by preparing a sort of blanket indictment and releasing it to the 
press, that that got on the ticker and in the papers to the exclusion 
of anything else about the hearings this morning. 

I feel as ranking minority, and if Mrs. Pfost disagrees with me, she 
can indicate it, that a witness who is making as many general and spe- 
cific accusations as this witness seems to indicate he is going to make, 
should be heard in executive session so that the members of the com- 
mittee will have some knowledge of what is coming out and some 
chance to intelligently prepare a set of questions to ask him. 

Now, I will give you one example. I do not want to unduly drag 
this out. 

But going back to the socialistic plot about the income tax, I had not 
realized until I did a little checking during the lunch hour that the 
income tax was first introduced by the Honorable Cordell Hull, of 
the State of Tennessee. 

I do not think that you would want the inference here to remain 
that he was a socialistic individual and involved in any plot to foist 
socialism on the United States. 

I do not think you would unless we went into it a little more fully. 

Mr. Sargent. Nobody has mentioned Mr. Hull, Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hats. I have mentioned Mr. Hull. I point out to you that this 
is in direct relation to your statement that this is part of the plot. 

Mr. Sargent. I charged Mr. Hull with nothing. I said underlying 
this thing is a radical intellectual elite having a purpose of their own 


and no other people in any way connected with it came along and made 
its enactment possible. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, he was a tool. 

Mr. Sargent. He was led by the influence of the time, as many peo- 
ple were, to do a thing which turned out to be a rather effective device 
tor the radical clique. 

Mr. Hays. Now, just a minute, until we dispose of this motion and 
then you can make all the statements you want to make. 

Mr. Sargent. I would like to speak on this Executive order, because 
this suggestion is unfair to me and the manner in which this thing is 
being protested. 

Mr. Hays. You are not a member of this committee and if a member 
of this committee makes a point of order you in nowise enter into it 
one way or the other. 

Mr. Sargent. I am an American citizen, and I have a right to 
express my views, if I wish to do so. 

Mr. Hays. You are an American citizen, but if you would act a little 
bit more on the principle of fair play and Americanism, we would 
get along a little better. 

The Chairman. So far as the Chair has been able to observe, the 
witness bag not up to now said anything derogatory about anyone, or 
indicated that he had in mind doing so. 

If that should be the case, then I think the suggestion that you have 
made would be well taken. 

My interest as chairman of the committee is to permit the wh> 
nesses who know that the foundations have not been conducted as 
they should have been in all instances, to present their views. If they 
have something, the committee staff, and the committee itself, feels 
justified in taking the time of the committee. 

Then I am equally interested in the foundations, or those who wish 
to speak in behalf of the foundations, having the same opportunity. 

As I said originally, my only purpose, so far as I am concerned, is 
to get an objective study made of this subject. 

Mr. Hays. If this is an objective study, to drop the name of Senator 
Douglas in as a Socialist, and then let Senator Douglas come in and 
deny later on that he is one, then I do not understand the meaning 
of the word "objectivity." 

But this has happened and it happened this morning, I do not like 
it and I notice all the significant dates that this gentleman has pre- 
sented have always been dates when the Democrats seem to have been 
in power. 

It might have started back under the Eepublicans, but we did not 
get to it until 1913, then something else, and we get to that in 1933, 
something like that. 

I am not going to sit here and let it happen. There is more than 
one way to get this. I do not want to be put in a position of walking 
out of this committee, but I can. ~* * 

The Chairman. He named a group that had met as a committee. 
So far as I am personally concerned, not having been as observant as 
other people, I did not identify Senator Douglas as being on the list. 

Anyway, the list itself was not read in a relationship that cast any 
reflection upon the members of the committee. At least I did not so 


I do not see any reason why Mr. Sargent should not be permitted 
to go ahead and make his statement. Then if there are any questions 
that need to be raised at the time, or if he brings in anybody in a 
derogatory way, then I think that is something that the committee 
should consider at the time because we do not expect that kind of thing 
in the committee. 

Mr. Hays. I am willing to be just as cooperative and tolerant as the 
chairman can possibly be, but I think the committee certainly has 
carefully tried to live within the rules that were adopted. 

Mr. Sargent. Mr. Reece, all I am proposing to do here is to read 
material from books, pamphlets, and documents and to make normal 
comment on the material I read. 

It is just a question of written material. My basic evidence is en- 
tirely written. 

The Chairman. You have reached that point ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, sir ; I am going to do that exclusively. 

Furthermore, the suggestion that this has a political twist is not 
correct. This is nonpartisan. I am reading a considerable amount 
of material during the 1920's. In fact, I am covering in regular 
fashion the significant events which occurred, when they took place 
based on their apparent relevance to the matter before you here. 

I will stick to that in entire good faith. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it will be impossible for me to 
match your patience, but I am going to try. 

Again I am going to try to explain to you what I think is the basic 
difference in opinion. That is this : that I have felt it was deliberate. 
If I am wrong, I am very sorry, but up to now I have seen no reason 
to change my opinion. 

We have people coming in here with these prepared statements, 
typewritten out, this scattergun technique, in which certain names are 
dropped in, certain statements are made. 

The members of the committee have no advance opportunity to 
inform themselves, to find anything out about it, to find out even the 
basic research to see whether it is true, and then the inference is left. 

I do not think it is any inference in the case of the income tax, and 
I keep referring to that, but it is such a glaring example that this is 
part of an un-American subversive socialistic collectiveness, to use a 
lot of terms that have been flung around with great abandon, plot; 
and the newspapers or anyone listening can get that impression. 

In addition, it is spread on the record of a committee of Congress, 
and the inference is that it is true and then later when the people who 
may have been maligned or who may have been testified about in a 
way that put them in a. bad light, come in and deny it, then it is not 
news anymore. 

I think we ought to have some insight in what these people are 
going to say before we let them come in here with a shotgun and shoot 
off in all directions. 

Mrs. Pfost. May I ask a question? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mrs. Pfost. Is the staff of the committee so busy that they cannot 
type up for us the excerpts of the material that he is going to give us 
this afternoon, or the forthcoming witnesses ? 

Now, the majority of the witnesses who appear before the commit- 
tee I am on, the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, supply each 


member of the committee with a mimeographed copy. And in the 
instances when I have testified before another committee, I have 
always furnished them with typewritten copies, or, if the committee is 
large, mimeographed copies. 

The Chairman. So far as typing statements, that could be done, 
and copies made available, if the statement itself is available. But in 
some instances, as I understood to be the case with Mr. Sargent, so 
much of his material is going to be what you might call documentary, 
that the statement itself that might be typed up was very sketchy and 
in order to make a complete statement, the documentation had to ac- 
company the statement. 

So that outside of his introductory references which were typed, 
the rest of it was simply what might be called notations to guide him 
in the presentation of his documentary evidence, which he has now 
reached and is ready to give. 

Mrs. Pfost. I observed, however, after he had started in with his 
particular binder from which he is working now, that he was reading 
whole paragraphs out of it. 

Mr. Sargent. In some cases I have read paragraphs merely for the> 
reason it would place a great burden on the Library of Congress to 
physically haul each one of those books over here. I have simply 
given in some cases reference to the fact that such a book was written 
at that particular time to build what you might call climate. 

I think this is a matter of great importance to the American people 
and I do not like the inference. There have been some very deroga- 
tory remarks made about me, and to suggest an executive hearing is a 
very unfair thing to me. 

Also I should think they should be put in the open. 

As long as I stick to books I think I am entitled to stick to these 

I am willing to submit myself to cross-examination. I think this is 
a public matter to be transacted publicly. I will adhere to your rule 
in good faith. 

1 am not throwing slugs at individuals. I am reading books, pam- 
phlets, documents, and I am commenting on books, documents, and 
pamphlets ; that is all. 

Mrs. Pfost. Of course, this morning you did refer to people by 

Mr. Sargent. I read them out of a pamphlet. 

Suppose I write some of these things out, suppose I had the time 
to do all that and I presented that to someone here, does that mean 
that there is to be a suppression of certain parts of the evidence which 
I have here which appeared to be pertinent to this inquiry? 

Mrs. Pfost. No; but certainly we would have an opportunity to go 
over the material and see what type of thing you were going to testify 
on if we had it in advance and it would give us an opportunity, too, 
to determine whether or not it would require an executive session, in- 
stead of just a scattering of shot, as Mr. Hays has said. 

Mr. Sargent. I will not go into executive session except under pro- 
test and under process. I am not prepared to testify in any executive 
session in this matter, unless compelled to by the processes of this 

I think it is improper and unfair to me, and I want to protest against 
any such suggestion. 


Mr. Hats. In what way would it be unfair to you ? It is done in 
every other committee in the House where accusations are made against 

Mr. Sargent. I interpret the remarks you have made as intending to 
cast reflection on me, and if such a hearing were held and the record 
not put out later, it would be used against, me as having brought 
improper matters before this committee. 

Mr. Hats. I am not trying to be unfair to you because I do not 
want to be doing what you are doing to other people. All I suggest 
is that if you are so afraid of an executive session, and I believe you 
have spent 5 hectic days getting this material ready, let the staff spend 
another hectic day or two getting it typed up so that we can at. least 
look at it before you come in here and start reading it. 

Do you think that is an unfair request ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think it is proper to let me proceed with this case 
as it is. * ■ 

Mr. Hats. What you think is not going to have very much influ- 
ence on the vote of the committee, I suppose. 

Mr. Sargent. I am unable to do that effectively. Furthermore, I 
would prefer to give testimony on this matter just as a witness does 
in court. A witness does not have a cold statement with him in court. 
He testifies in a normal fashion. He subjects himself to being ques- 
tioned as he goes. 

I am prepared to do that. 

Mr. Hats. As you have probably observed already, these congres- 
sional committees do not run very much like a court of law. You can 
comes in, by somebody. In many cases it is a lengthy, long-drawn-out 
not get away with saying in a court of law. I will submit to you that 
in most courts of law there is some preexamination before a witness 
comes in, by somebody. In many cases it is a lengthy, long-drawn-out 
process by deposition and what-have-you. 

The Chairman. I. think we should all refrain from characteriza- 
tions when we are referring to other people. With my experience 
it is that we all have a hard enough time. 

You take the statement that was made earlier, that if we are going 
to have the type of witnesses we have had, we ought to have a psychia- 
trist examine them. That casts a reflection on these two witnesses. 

Mr. Hats. I did not mean to cast any reflection on the other 2 
witnesses as much as I did on the 1 here, to be frank about it. 

I do not know whether I am awake or dreaming, to tell you the 
truth. Sometimes, to use the expression of one of the reporters this 
morning, this could not be happening; we must have all been asleep. 

I have had a lot of nightmares, but never one like this. 

The Chairman. As I recall the way the statement was made, refer- 
ring to the ones that had been called, it was two very eminent scholars 
who were widely recognized in the field of education. 

Mr. Hats. The first witness turned out to be a witness for the 
other side on cross-examination, about the NEA. He certainly dam- 
aged that argument terrifically. 

The second one, I think, is a kind of nice mixed-up fellow that 
needs straightening out somewhat. At the moment I think he is a 
little confused. 

I do not mean to imply anything is badly wrong with him. 

Mr. Sargent. This reading this morning was at your request. 


Mr. Hats. You dropped in the name of Senator Douglas and 
one other name I do not remember. I merely said if you are going 
to start dropping names of political people, let us put them all in 
the record. The record will show that. 

Mr. Sargent. You asked for all the names, however, and I gave 

Mr. Hats. That is right, because you put in the name of Senator 
Douglas and I personally believe you did it deliberately with malice 

Another thing you did, you brought in the name of Sister Mary 
Margaret, and then you pause for emphasis and put in the name of 

I submit to you that ordinarily people in the orders do not use 
the last name and I wonder if it is in the flyleaf of the book. 

Mr. Sargent. It is. I gave you the information about the author 
and the book. 

Previously you had been questioning authority for the statements I 
was making. I want to make it clear that I was relying on a high- 
type of research book in the statement I made. 

Mr. Hats. Maybe we ought to subpena the officials of the Catholic 
University and find out how high-type this is. 

I happen to know something about the background of the author 
of that book, how long it took her to get a degree, and so forth, and 
even that there was a little pressure used or she would not have it yet. 1 

Mr. Sargent. May I go on? ""* — 

The Chairman. I question seriously whether references of that 
type ought to be thrown out in the committee. 

Mr. Hays. If we are going to throw them out we ought to throw 
them all out. 

I made a point of order. The rules are here. Are we going to 
abide by them? 

The Chairman. I am interested in the decorum of the committee as 
a whole. I do not know this Sister. 

Mr. Hats. I do not know her, either, but I have done a little check- 
ing. You see, that is where you are at a disadvantage. You have 
to use your lunch hour to try to find out what kind of documents 
these are. 

Mr. Sargent. I will bring the book for you tomorrow morning. 

Mr. Hays. The book itself does not mean anything. It is but one 
person's opinion. You are buttressing your opinion with somebody 
else's opinion. 

Mr. Sargent. It is based on original documentary material. I 
checked some material at the Hoover Institute on War, Peace, and 
Kevolution at Stanford University. 

It is considered to be the best document of its kind in existence. 
I think any well-grounded scholar will tell you the same thing. The 
book is eminently reliable. 

Mr. Hays. I want to vote right now whether we abide by rule 1, or 
whether we do not. I am going to insist we have a vote. We have a 
right to have one. 

1 Statement of rector of the Catholic University of America, regarding this comment 
appears at p. 1179, pt. 2. 



It says here : 

If a majority of the committee believes — 

and I do not know how we are going to find out how the rest of 
them will believe unless we put the question. 

The Chairman. There have been no names brought in here in a 
derogatory way so far as the chairman can see. It happens that 1 
of the other 2 majority members has been engaged in drafting the 
Social Security Act at this time — the amendments to it. 

The other is a chairman of another important committee. 

Mr. Hats. That is interesting. They gave their proxies to you to 
do their thinking for them. It says: 

If the majority of the committee believes. 

I do not see how we are going to get the basis for that unless you 
are going to do their thinking for them or have them here to say 
what they think ; 1 of the 2. 

I would not even object to this unusual procedure, Mr. Chairman, 
but we have had it before, and when we want to cross-examine these 
people we cannot cross-examine them because tomorrow we have 
subo**naed so and so and the next day we have so and so. 

I know what is going to happen. When the great crusade bogs' 
down completely, we will all go home and that will be the end of the 
hearings and the other side will not be heard. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sargent says that he will make himself sub- 
ject to cross-examination after his whole testimony is completed. 

Mr. Sargent. I can come back here next Monday or Tuesday for 
that purpose and the transcript can be written and it can be studied 

Mr. Hats. How long have you been here now under subpena? 

Mr. Sargent. I arrived in town Wednesday morning, last Wednes- 

Mr. Hats. The committee has been responsible for your expenses, 
I suppose, ever since then? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know what the rule is on that. I felt a need 
for an adequate preparation. 

Mr. Hats. In other words, the taxpayers of the United States are 
paying for you to come from California to Washington and getting 
these documents together. 

Did you have any help from our staff? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Hats. Now, the truth begins to come out. The staff helped you 
out, too? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Hats. You know, that is a kind of funny thing. I cannot 
even get one staff member to help me because there is not any minority 
staff, but they help the witnesses that they go out and dig up and bring 
in who present the same peculiar type of thinking apparently that 
they do. 

Mr. Sargent. May I testify, please? 

Mr. Hats. I do not know. We have not decided yet. 

Mr. Sargent. I am here to testify. I would like to do it, Mr. Hays, 
and to give you the truth based upon documents, books, and pam- 


phlets, and to read from them accurately and comment normally on 
the material I read. That is why I am here. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, there is a principle involved. I would 
like to go along with you. I like you and all that. 

The Chairman. The Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. Hays. All right. I move that under the rules the witness be 
dispensed with until such time as the committee can decide whether 
or not they want to subpena him in executive session. 

Mrs. Pfost. I second the motion. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, may I bring out one material fact? 

Mr. Sargent, to what extent has the staff of the committee assisted 
you ? Personally I have had about 10 minutes conversation with you. 
I have seen none of your material. 

Mr. Sargent. Simply in getting various things for me which I de- 
sired, and just in the way of general help, not a great deal of specific 
help. I brought quite a quantity of stuff with me and I had various 
requirements. I, of course, had to familiarize myself with your prior 
proceedings to see what was desired. 

Mr. Wormser. I supplied you with no material except what you 
requested specifically for us to get ? 

Mr. Sargent. That is right, I went to the Library of Congress and 
I ran down material on things which I lacked. I did my own research 
here. It has been entirely for your benefit. 

I have come here at personal financial sacrifice, as far as that goes. 

Mr. Wormser. The implication that the staff has in any way pre- 
pared your testimony is not correct ? 

Mr. Sargent. On the contrary, I prepared it myself and it is my 
own views. 

Mr. Hays. I was trying to find out the answer to that question, 
whether they did, or not. 

The Chairman. The answer is that they did not. 

Mr. Hays. All right, that is what I wanted to know, but they did 
give him clerical help. Up to now I have asked for a transcript of 
the facts from them and I have not been able to get them. 

The Chairman. I vote "no," and I also vote the proxy's "no." 

Mr. Hays. I have one more question to ask. 

Are you going to abide by the rules ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. If the minority is not here, you cannot have a hearing ? 

The Chairman. That is right, without any majority of the com- 

Mr. Hays. We will be back when we get a majority of the commit- 
tee, but I want to hear the other two vote, themselves. 

The Chairman. Under the circumstances the committee stands ad- 
journed until the morning at 10 o'clock. 

The committee tomorrow will meet in the caucus room in the Old 
House Office Building. 

(Thereupon, at 3 : 20 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m. Tuesday, May 25, 1954, in the caucus room, Old House 
Office Building.) 


TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate 

Tax-Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D. 0. 

The special committee met at 10:28 a. m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 1301, New House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman 
of the special committee) presiding. 

Present: Eepresentatives Reece, Wolcott, Hays, Goodwin, and 

Also present : Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel ; Norman Dodd, research director ; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

The Chairman would like to make a statement. In view of the fact 
that one of the members of the committee referred to the other side, 
and in other expressions inferred that the majority of the committee 
or its counsel or staff had taken a side, I was trying to prove a case, 
neither the majority members of the committee nor its counsel or staff 
have a side in this inquiry, as the chairman has heretofore said. As 
a convenience to the foundations, an initial report was submitted out- 
lining the main lines of major criticisms of foundations which a pre- 
liminary study by the staff had shown were sufficiently supported by 
evidence to warrant considering carefully. 

We are now in the first stage of assessing these criticisms by hearing 
some of the supporting evidence. We shall later hear evidence sup- 
plied bythe foundations themselves, defending against these critic- 
isms. We shall not prejudge. We shall not try to prove a case. 
We are here to learn what the truth may be. 

Needless to say, criticism cannot be expected to come from the 
foundations themselves. It must come, if at all, chiefly from persons 
not directly connected with foundation matters. We shall give 
foundation representatives respectful attention. We do not see why 
persons who have criticism to offer are not entitled to the same cour- 
teous treatment. Failure to give them such courtesy and inclination 
to condemn them for daring to criticize frankly and even seyerly 
would seem to me to deny such witnesses the privileges of citizens 
and to fail to give them the consideration to which we believe they 
are entitled from members of the committee. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, in reply to your prepared statement, I 
will say off the cuff that I did not infer that there was another side. 
I stated frankly that there was another side. Anybody who wants 
to read your statement in the Congressional Record or in volume 1 



of this transcript will very definitely get the impression that you were 
on that side. Then if they will read Mr. Dodd's statement, they will 
see that after 6 months of research, that he got on your side, too. 
If anybody has the stomach to read that statement of yours clear 
through, and then get up here and say there is not a side, and there 
has not been a very definite and, damaging attack made on foundations, 
they better reread it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sargent had not completed his statement when 
we adjourned 

Mr. Hays. I have a point of order before he starts. 

The Chairman. At the time of our recess yesterday. The question, 
I think, arises whether he should be permitted, as he has expressed 
a desire, to complete his statement and then make himself available 
for criticism or for questioning when he has concluded — he agreeing; 
to make himself available for that purpose. 

The chairman's interest is in orderly procedure and in moving 
forward. We spent the better part of the day yesterday and the wit- 
ness was able to make very slight progress on his statement, and I 
am wondering what the wishes of the committee with reference to 
. procedure might be. 

Mr. Hats. I have a point of order right now. 

The Chairman. May I hear it ? 

Mr. Hays. You sure may. I am quoting clause 25, rule 11, para- 
graph (f ) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, very briefly : 

Each committee shall so far as practicable require all witnesses appearing 
before it to file in advance written statements of their proposed testimony, and 
to limit their oral presentation to brief summaries of their argument. The staff 
of each committee shall prepare digests of such statements for the use of com- 
mittee members. 

I make a point of order that the witness has not complied with this 
rule, that it has been practicable for him to do so inasmuch as the staff 
typed up his statement for him, or at least assisted him in it, and 
there is no reason why this rule should not be complied with. 

The Chairman. A preliminary statement was prepared yesterday 
for the members of the committee, and likewise for the press. It was- 
not comprehensive. The Chair had understood that the witness ex- 
pected to confine, after his opening analysis of his testimony, largely 
to documentation, and in view of that fact, the Chair indicated to the 
witness that method of procedure would be satisfactory, if he made 
himself available for questioning after the transcript was available 
to the members of the committee. 

Mr. Wolcott. Mr. Chairman, the situation seems to turn on whether 
it is practicable or not. Those of us who have any responsibility in 
presenting this testimony realize that it might not be practicable under 
the circumstances for the witness to prepare a statement, nor for the 
staff to digest it. The question turns on whether it is practical or 
not. I think we would get more information that we are seeking with- 
out a prepared statement than we would in a prepared statement. 

I am very much interested in the subject this witness is discussing. 
I might say I have my own views on Fabian socialism, or whatever 
you might call it. I think the real danger to the American system of 
government is not communism. The real danger to the American sys- 
tem of government is Fabian socialism. If any of these foundations- 
are engaging in practices paralleling the growth of Fabian socialism 


in the British Empire, which resulted in the socialization of the British 
Empire to the prejudice of their type of democracy, then I think it 
is the duty of Congress, surely the members of this committee, to find 
out what is happening. 

I understand that this witness has qualified himself as more or less 
expert on this matter. That is the thing that we are seeking, informa- 
tion which he has. 

As far as anything else is concerned, I would let the chips fall 
where they may. We have to make a record here and find out what is; 
going on. The Fabian Socialists work quietly through infiltration. 
The Communists are out waving their red flags and yelling and 
whooping and hollering and picketing. We can see that. We can- 
not see Fabian socialism. We have to dig for .it. We are in the 
process now, as I understand it, of digging for it, 

Mr. Hays. Yes, sir; we were digging back in 1892. 

Mr. Wolcott. That does not make any difference. The Fabiai> 
Socialist movement in Great Britain went back to the turn of the 
century. Great names were mentioned. George Bernard Shaw was; 
one of the greatest of Fabians in Great Britain. He has the respect 
of millions of people. I am sure that the founders of these founda- 
tions would turn over several times in their graves if they felt that 
their money was being used for the destruction of the American sys- 
tem of government. Whether it is destroyed by socialism or com- 
munism is not the point. I think we owe them an obligation, as well 
as ourselves and the people whom we represent, to find out whether 
there is any danger to the American system, and where it lies. That 
is the reason I am on this committee. I would not be on the com- 
mittee if I was not interested in that subject. 

I have several other committees that take up most of my time. I 
cannot stand here — I have not the time — to bicker about the way in 
which we develop the matter. We have got to do a job and it has got 
to be done. It has got to be done pretty quickly. Otherwise, we are 
running the same course, a parallel course, to Fabian socialism which 
destroyed Great Britain. I do not like it, frankly. I do not like 
what I see on the horizon. The sun is not coming up. It is a very 
cloudy day in America because of Fabian socialism. 

Let us bring it out here and find out what is going on. 

Mr. Hays. There are a lot of differences of opinion. 

Mr. Wolcott. I know it. I have been charged repeatedly before 
the Banking and Currency Committee of years gone by of seeing- 
ghosts under the table. Sometimes those ghosts come out and kick 
you in the shins. We want to avoid that if we can. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I am temporarily on leave from 
another committee, and a most important executive session. I am not 
interested at the moment in colloquy between members of the com- 
mittee. I understand you have a witness ready to go forward. I 
understand you have a point of order before you. Is there any reason, 
why that cannot be concluded. 

The Chairman. The point of order is over. The Chair sees no 
practical justification for upholding the point of order, and he over- 
rules the point of order. 

Mr. Hays. The Chair would not uphold any point of order that 
he did not agree with, no matter what the rule said. That has become; 
pretty obvious in these hearings. 

49720— 54 — pt. 1 16 


The Chairman. Now- 

Mr. Hays. Don't start interrupting me, or you better bring in the 
sergeant at arms, because I am going to be heard just the same as; you 
are. You may be afraid of Fabian socialism, but I am afraid of Ke- 
publican dictatorship. Let us get it out in the open. You brought 
m the shock troops here, so let us fight it out. 

Mr. Goodwin. I understood we were going to hear the witness. 

Mr. Hats. We are going to have more points of order. 

The second point of order is that the committee is in violation of the 
rules of the House and the Keorganization Act, inasmuch as the minor- 
ity of the committee has been deprived of one single staff member. 

The Chairman. The Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. Hats. I will, say the Chair did not keep his word. When I 
helped the Chair get his $65,000, so you would not look stupid when 
they were going to shut you off, you promised me a staff member. 
Did you or did you not? 

The Chairman. No one has individually a member of the staff. 

Mr. Hays. You have the whole staff. 

The Chairman. There is a member of the staff that was employed 
on the recommendation of the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. Hays. As a stenographer. 

The Chairman. No ; not as a stenographer. 

Mr. Hats. That is what she does. 

The Chairman. As an analyst or researcher, I am not sure what 
her title is. That is what our understanding is. 

Mr. Hats. I have a motion to make. I move that we hear this 
witness in executive session in order to prevent further name dropping 
and any further hurting of people who have no place in this hearing. 

Mrs. Pfost. I second it. 

Mr. Wqwjott. As a substitute for that, Mr. Chairman, I move that 
the witness be allowed to proceed with his statement without inter- 

Mr. Hats. You can pass all those motions you want, but I will 
interrupt whenever I feel like it. How do you like that? So you 
might as well save your breath, Jesse. 

Mr. Wolcott. I should like to. 

Mr. Hays. You run the Banking and Currency Committee without 
proxies, but in this committee you run it with proxies. You make the 
rules as you go along for the majority, and I will make the rules for 
myself as I go along, and if this fellow does not want to bring in a 
statement, I will interrupt him whenever I feel like it. He better get 
a bigger mouth than that. 

Mr. Wolcott. As I understand it, this committee made the rules, 
and we are proceeding under the rules adopted by this committee. 

Mr. Hats. You know there is no such rule on this committee. When 
did we make this rule? 

Mr. Wolcott. I understand we can vote by proxy. If we do not, 
I shall make a motion that we do vote by proxy. I understood that 
I had given the chairman a proxy and there had been no objection to it. 

Mr. Hays. I just want the record to show that you rule one way in 
the committee of which you are chairman and another way here. 

Mr. Wolcott. You can make that record if you want to. The Bank- 
ing and Currency Committee of 29 members have asserted themselves 
on a good many occasions, and we get along very nicely in that com- 


mittee and with the rules of the House. Until the Banking and Cur- 
rency Committee changes the rules, we will abide by the rules which 
have been adopted, if any have been adopted. I do not remember.that 
any have been adopted. We operate under the rules of the House. 

Does anybody want to support a substitute motion ? I move a sub- 
stitute motion to the motion made by the gentleman from Ohio that 
the witness be allowed to proceed with his statement without interrup- 
tion, and at the conclusion of his statement that he subject himself to 

Mr. Goodwin. Second. 

Mr. Hays. I have something to say on that motion. It might take 
quite a little while. In the first place, what this motion entails is 
ttiat this fellow can come in here and do what he did yesterday. 

Mr. Goodwin. Who is "the fellow," may I inquire? 

Mr. Hays. Eight down here. 

Mr. Goodwin. You mean the witness? 

Mr. Hays. I will call him anything I like. We understand each 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I have something else to do 

Mr. Hays. Go ahead. Whenever you go, the minority will go, and 
that will be the end of the hearing. If you can just stay here and 
be patient, I have a right to be heard on the substitute and I am 
going to be heard on the substitute. 

The Chairman. Reasonably. 

Mr. Hays. I will decide what is reasonable. In other words, you 
know the trouble around here—and this is pertinent, too — that there 
have been too many committees in which the minority has allowed 
itself to be gaffled into submission and silence. I am going to be the 
kind of minority that does not go so easy for that gaffle stuff. 

Mr. Wolcott. You have been in the minority for 20 years. 

Mr. Hays. You know the funny part of it is that most of you fel- 
lows are still in the minority, because you don't seem to have the 
responsibility to run this Congress. That is why the great crusade 
is in reverse. 

Mr. Wolcott. If the minority will allow us to assume our responsi- 
bility, we will get along. 

Mr. Hays. The minority on this committee is not going to sit here 
silent and have peoples' characters assassinated at will by dropping 
their names in as Senator Douglas' name was dropped in yesterday, 
deliberately, because it was 1 of only 2 names the witness mentioned 
out of a whole series of names. He had his name underscored in the 
pamphlet that he was reading from. He had the name "Paul Doug- 
las" underscored. 

The Chairman. But the others were being put in the record. 
' Mr. Hays. At my insistence, let the record show. 

The Chairman. No, they were being put in the record. 

Mr. Hays. No, they were not being put in the record. The only 
thing that was going into the record was what this gentleman was 
going to say. I said if you are going to read — the record is here, and 
if you want to start reading from the record, I will read from the 

Mr. Wolcott. I ask for the question. 

Mr. Hays. I am still talking. 


Mr. Wolcott. I ask for the question. 

Mr. Hats. Go ahead and ask. I say the gentleman is coming in 
with a shotgun and shooting in all directions, and the committee does 
not want to give protection to the people whose characters he is going 
to assassinate. That is what the substitute motion does. I think it 
is bad and in violation of the rules of the House. It is in violation 
of the rules of orderly committee procedure which you seem to be so* 
concerned with. I just want the record to show that if the majority 
wants to let people like this come in and do that, that is up to them. 

The Chairman. All in favor say "Aye." 

Mr. Wolcott. Aye. 

Mr. Goodwin. Aye. 

The Chairman. Opposed, "No." 

Mr. Hays. No. 

Mrs. Pfost. No. 

The Chairman. Aye. Three have voted in the affirmative and 
two in the negative. The substitute motion is carried. 

Mrs. Pfost. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I move that the- 
committee subpena Dean Rusk, president of the Carnegie Foundation,, 
and hear him just as soon as possible. 

Mr. Hats. Would you like to make that more specific and say "as 
soon as we finish with this witness" ? 

Mrs. Pfost. Yes. I will add that, "as soon as we finish with this; 

Mr. Hats. I will second that motion. 

The Chairman. The committee has had in mind hearing Dean 
Rusk. I think the chairman's own view is that there ought to be an 
orderliness about the procedure. No doubt Dean Rusk 

Mr. Hays. What is disorderly about subpenaing him next ? 

The Chairman. So far as the chairman is concerned, he certainly 
has no personal objection to his appearing at any time. 

Mr. Hays. I am anxious to ask him 1 question, just 1, I promise 
you, and if he answers it as I think he will, I may ask a second to- 
just complete an identity. 

The Chairman. Who is that? 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Rusk. I will give you a promise that is all I want 
to ask him. But if he answers the ouestion as I believe he will, it 
may change the whole course of these hearings, and we may find that 
we have to back up and make a fresh start. 

Mr. Wolcott. May I ask the chairman if it is the intention of the- 
staff to have Dean Rusk before the committee ? 

The Chairman. That is the intention ; yes. 

Mrs. Pfost. How much later on, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Koch. As soon as all of the so-called criticisms are before the 
committee so that Dean Rusk and anybody else can answer all of thenu 

Mr. Hats. Is there any reason why he can't come in and answer 
one question that will take perhaps 5 minutes ? 

Mr. Koch. I would suggest that maybe we could stipulate that 
you send him the question and let it be read into the record. 

Mr. Hats. No; I want him to appear under oath. He has to be: 
under oath or else the answer is no good. 

Mr. Koch. Couldn't he put it in an affidavit? 

Mr. Hays. No. 


Mr. Koch. The point is that if he has to come back later to answer 
^ lot of other questions as a matter of convenience for him— -maybe I 
should not be arguing his convenience— but later on he may want 
to be on for a whole day. 

Mr. Hats. It only takes an hour for him to come down — where is 
Le, in New York? 

The Chairman. The plan of the procedure, may I say for the mem- 
bers of the committee who have not all had an opportunity to be here 
all the time, was to present what was generally termed a line of criti- 
cism against the foundations. Then the foundations and those who 
might be interested in speaking on their behalf would have full knowl- 
edge of everything that was said and be able to make a complete 
■coverage, or as complete as they desire to do so. That was the pro- 
cedure as I indicated in my statement a little earlier, that we in- 
tended to follow. The Chair has no deep feeling about it one way or 
another. I shall consult the attitude of the other members of the 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Chairman, let me say that you have expressed a great 
deal of concern both here in public and in private about the expediting 
■of these hearings. I told you that if the minority could have a feeling 
that any slight wish that it might have might be respected that you 
might find it easier to get along with the minority. 

Now, we are only asking in the form of a motion that Mr. Rusk be 
brought in here for 5 minutes. We will even give you a time limit on 

The Chairman. I would hardly be inclined to feel that we bring 
him in under limited time. 

Mr. Wolcott. I have a good many questions to ask all of these 
foundations when they come in. 

Mr. Hats. I have no objection to bringing him back later, Mr. Wol- 
cott, but there is a very pertinent thing that ought to be brought out at 
this point, and I want him here to ask him. It has a great deal of 
bearing, as you will see. I can' say what it is at the moment. 

Mr. Wolcott. How can we vote intelligently 

The Chairman. If the witness is to be called, it would not be the 
chairman's thinking that he ought to be called subject to limitations. 

Mr. Hats. I don't care whether you do or not. I merely offered 
that to your convenience to show you that we were not trying to dilly- 
dally or delay by having him here. 

Mr. Wolcott. Question. 

The Chairman. The Chair will either put the question or he will 
say that Dean Husk will be summoned to appear after we have con- 
cluded with Mr. Sargent's testimony. 

Mr. Hats. That is satisfactory. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully suggest that while 
•counsel has not the slightest objection to calling Dean Rusk for this 
purpose, we hope it will not be a precedent so that the procedure we 
planned will be disturbed. 

The Chairman. It is not so intended. It is an exception. 

Mr. Hats. Let me say to you this, Mr. Wormser, that we are using 
the name Dean Rusk. I am not acquainted with the gentleman at all. 
I never met him that I know of. But I believe he is the president of 
the Carnegie Foundation. 

Mr. Wormser. Rockefeller. 


Mr. Hats. That is the man I want 

Mr. Wormser. We intended to call him. I have had conversations 
with Dean Rusk. 

The Chairman. That was so understood, and the chairman will issue 
a subpena to that effect. 

Mr. Wormser. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, one more thing. There 
was some difficulty in arranging for two professors to appear next 
Tuesday, Professor Rau of Yale, and Professor Colgrove, formerly 
of Northwestern. It is rather difficult to get these men who are on 
active duty. Could I put them on Tuesday ? 

The Chairman. Dean Rusk will not consume all day Tuesday, and 
I would suggest that they be available when Dean Rusk completes his 

Mr. Wormser. All right. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. This is a friendly discussion here. 

You may proceed, Mr. Sargent. 


Mr. Sargent. During the course of our discussions yesterday, there 
was reference to an original source book upon which I relied in giving 
certain testimony regarding the early history of the British' Fabian 

Mr. Hays. I have a question right there, and that is this : On these 
source books and these various things you are going to read into the 
record, will there be many more names read into the record ? 

Mr. Sargent. I will read the title of the book, I will read the author 
of the book, I will read literally and exactly the order in which ma- 
terial appears, any panel of names starting with the first name and 
going to the last name, and making no selection of my own in between 
the first and the last. I do not intend to create the inference you sug- 
gested yesterday, I assure you, sir. That will not happen again. 

Mr. Hats. All right. 

Mr. Sargent. I am referring to this book now because there was 
some comment 

Mr. Hats. I have another question right there. 

Mr. Sargent. I understood I was not going to be interrupted. 

Mr. Hats. You misunderstood then. You did not hear what I said. 
You said you didn't intend to create the inference that was created 
yesterday. As I read the press this morning, I read in one of the 
papers, a New York paper, that some reporter asked you if Paul 
Douglas which you mentioned, and you mentioned only one other 
name at that point in the testimony 

Mr. Sargent. Isadore Lubin was the other name. 

Mr. Hats. If that were the Senator from Illinois, and the paper 
quoted you as saying that you presumed that it was; is that correct? 

Mr. Sargent. I thought it was, yes, because of Paul Douglas' subse- 

Juent appearances at various meetings of the League for Industrial 
>emocracy, as shown by its publications. 

Mr. Hats. Then you did intend deliberately to put Paul Douglas' 
name in the record. 


Mr. Sargent. I had no particular intend to ascribe anything to him 
aside from showing the fact that he was there. I underscored those 
two names because 

Mr. Hays. That is exactly what 

Mr. Sargent. May I finish my answer, please ? I underscored those 
two names because those names were known to me. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Sargent, apparently the minority is going to be 
overruled quite a bit, but the minority is going to insist that we try 
to conduct this as nearly as possible in conformity with other con- 
gressional hearings. When any member of this committee — majority 
or minority — asks you a question, that doesn't give you an automatic 
license to make a speech. You could have either answered that ques- 
tion "yes" or "no." That is all I want. If you are so anxious to 
conserve time, perhaps if you would just be a little more succinct in 
your answers to the questions I ask you, we could conserve some time 
that way. 

I ask you, did you deliberately intend to put the name of Paul 
Douglas in the record ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, not in the sense in which you ask the question. 

Mr. Hays. You are interpreting the sense I ask the question? 

Mr. Sargent. No. I would like to explain my answer. May I do 

Mr. Hays. Did you have his name underscored in the pamphlet? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, along with other names. 

Mr. Hays. All right, that is enough. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. I did not read the remaining names because they were 
not particularly known to me especially, and I was trying to conserve 
the time of the committee. There was reference to this book on Fabian- 
ism. I have it before me. It was part of my luggage I brought from 
California with me. The exact title of the book — I am reading on the 
cover itself now — is, Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 1919- 
81. The author's name given below is McCarran. At the bottom 
the publisher's name, Heritage Foundation. 

The next item on the flyleaf reads as follows : 

Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain — — 

Mr, Hays. Just to get the record straight, would you be able to 
mention the names of any other books published by this Heritage 

Mr. Sargent. Clarence Manion's book, The Key to Peace, has been 

Eublished by them and distributed widely through the American 

Mr. Hays. He is the fellow that Eisenhower fired? 

Mr. Sargent. He did not fire him. Are you attacking Manion along 
with the rest of them ? 

Mr. Hays. No, I wanted to know if it is the same company that 
published his book. 

Mr. Sargent. They do, and I think the American Legion and many 
Members of Congress endorse that as a very valuable contribution to 
the subject. 

The flyleaf is entitled, "Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 


On the next page I find the following : 

This dissertation was conducted under the direction of Prof. John T. Parrell, 
as major professor, and was approved by Prof. Friedrich Engle-Janosi, and Rev. 
Wilfred Parsons, S. J., as readers. 

The title page itself, and I am reading in full, is the following : 

Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 191&-31. 
A Dissertation. 
Submitted to the 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, may I interrupt you again % 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. 

Mr. Hats. I would like to be a little patient with you and let you 
read as much as you like. This committee also has some problems and 
one of them is the lack of time to do everything that we would like 
to get done. If you are going to spend your time reading flyleaves 
•and title pages, is there any objection — and I will assure you there 
will be none — if we include the title page and flyleaf in the record ? 
You have been 5 minutes reading that and what does it mean after 
you have read it ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am very anxious to save time. There was reference 
to the thing. I want to say this, that this shows on its face it is a dis- 
sertation submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and 
Sciences of the Catholic University of America in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements of the degree of doctor of philosophy, and the 
author's name appearing in the book is Sister M. Margaret Patricia 
McCarran, Ph. I)., of the Sisters of the Holy Names, second edition. 

As some evidence of the thoroughness of the work, I would refer to 
the bibliography in the back. It cites 85 authors and material, and 
in addition it refers to Fabian treatises and pamphlets, tracts, arti- 
cles, a wealth of source material. 

It is my opinion and of many others who study these subjects that 
it is the outstanding book of its kind. I have the book and would 
like to leave it with the clerk for the convenience of any member of 
the committee to examine. 

The Chairman. Filed with the committee, but not for printing. 

Mr. Sargent. Not for printing, hardly, no. 

Mr. Hays. Because we don't have a copy of what you are going to 
say, it is very difficult to keep all these straight. Would you repeat 
the title of that once more, please ? 

Mr. Sargent. You mean the title page ? Fabianism in the Politi- 
cal Life of Britain, 1919-31. The first chapter is the introduction 

Mr. Hays. Would you want to give us a little digest of what this is 
all about? 

Mr. Sargent. What, the book? 

Mr. Hays. Can you give us a thumbnail sketch of what its con- 
clusions ai^, or anything? 

Mr. Sargent. The book itself 

Mr. Hays. Or is it just a running history of the movement? 

Mr. Sargent. First of all the introduction, the valuable part for 
present purposes, the introduction itself, which gives the early history 
of the development of the movement there in Great Britain commenc- 
ing in the 1880's and running down to the 1900's. It is necessary for 
the author to give that as background before the commencement of 
her study. She picks up the period from 1919 to 1931, explaining the 


way in which the Fabian Party made its infiltration of Great Britain 
effective, and dominated Government policy and put over its system. 
That is what the book is about. 

Mrs. Pfost. In Great Britain? 

Mr. Sargent. Great Britain; yes. It is significant because it is my 
judgment a parallel of certain efforts that are being made in this 
country. I will read you the various titles if you want the scope of it. 

Mr. Hays. No ; I was trying to get a general idea of what is in it. 

Mr. Sargent. The period under critical study is 1919 to 1931, but 
the background material is the one to which I referred, namely, the 
inception of the Fabian Party and the persons identified with it. 

Mr. Hays. I understood you to say that in your opinion there is 
a parallel between that movement in England and some similar move- 
ment here. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, there is a tie — there is apparently a tie-in. 

Mr. Hays. Do you think there is any movement in the United 
States, even a small one, which might be roughly compared to the 
Nazi- Socialist movement in Germany? 

Mr. Sargent. I wouldn't compare them as such. No, I think there 
is a radical intellectual elite that is attempting to subvert and guide 
the policies in our country and the foundations are aiding them 

Mr. Hays. "We sort of got off the trail there, didn't we? I am 
asking if there is any group which would be diametrically opposite to 
that, who would like to put the country in some sort of dictatorship 
of wealth, we will say, and sort of orient all thinking into their way 
of thinking, such as the fact that big wealth should be allowed to 
be predatory, it should not have any income tax, and that the oil deple- 
tion allowance ought to go up from 27y 2 percent, I have heard the 
figure to 75 percent, and things like that. Do you think there is any 
concerted group that is pushing that kind of philosophy ? 

Mr. Sargent. It is not that kind of picture. It is a different picture, 
but it is subversive. I will answer that fully when I complete my 
evidence here. The evidence I have here bears on that question. 

Mr. Hays. When you get through your testimony, I will be glad 
to ask you again. 

Mr. Sargent. I will be glad to have you make a note of it and 
remind me. 

My position in this matter, first of all, I think I should state clearly 
as an aid to free consideration of my evidence. The position I take is 
that we have here involved a right of freedom of inquiry. That in- 
cludes the right to make an academically free inquiry into the success 
and failures of the past 50 years, to determine our future course of 
action wdth due regard to the results of such an analysis competently 
made. We have the right to consider and to give proper weight to 
such views as expressed along that line by a scholar such as Clarence 
Manion in his book, and others. In short, that particular point of 
view is entitled to equal consideration and equal publicity with the 
views of those who may happen to disagree with this particular wing, 
if you want to call it that. 

Mr. Hays. Let me ask you a question right there. I am inclined to 
agree with that as I understood you reading it. You say that you 
believe that everyone should have a right to freedom of academic in- 
quiry — is that the way you stated it — and that the views of both 


sides should have an equality of presentation, or is that generally 
what you said ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, I am standing here particularly for the right 
of what I call critical study and analysis and the publication of the 
results of that critical study and analysis, and the right to have 
foundation support in making it. 

Mr. Hays. That leads me right up to what I want to ask you. You 
say, or you are implying — I think you are saying, and I don't want to 
put words in your mouth — that the foundations have not been sup- 
porting your point of view. 

Mr. Sargent. Definitely. 

Mr. Hays. You think the Congress ought to make a law and say, 
"Look, you foundations have to support Mr. Sargent's point of view," 
is that right? 

Mr. Sargent. No, I don't say anything like that. I say if they 
don't do that, they become propagandists for one side and cease to 
be educational, and should forfeit their exemption privilege. 

Mr. Hays. You don't think all foundations are on this side ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think you will find an amazing picture if you in- 
quire into it. 

Mr. Hays. I have done a little inquiring into it. I am not a self- 
appointed expert on the subject. But there are some foundations 
which do give the other side. What about the Heritage Foundation? 

Mr. Sargent. Do you know the Heritage Foundation applied to 
the Ford Foundation for a grant to distribute Manion's The Key to 
Peace, and could not get the money ? Do you know that ? 

Mr. Hays. I don't know that, but I would say that a lot of people 
would say that is using intelligent judgment on the part of the Ford 

Mr. Sargent. That is a fact. 

The Chairman. For the record the chairman might state that the 
Heritage Foundation is not a foundation in the tax-exempt sense 
of the word. 

Mr. Sargent. That is correct. 

Mr. Hays. I am glad to have that in the record. I didn't know 

Mr. Sargent. No ; it is a business corporation. 

Mr. Hays. As I say, I am not an expert. 

Mr. Sargent. But the Ford Foundation was unwilling to appro- 
priate money to aid the distribution of a work of academic merit, 
Clarence Manion's book, here. 

Mr. Hays. You know it is a funny thing, but I have a copy of that 
book on my desk and I have read it. And there are certain things in 
it which I think are an interesting point of view. I don't agree with 
it 100 percent. I certainly would not criticize any foundation be- 
cause they didn't see fit to distribute it, by and large. As a matter of 
fact, I think they would have wasted a lot of money if they had, 
because I don't think too many people would have read it if you made 
a present of it. It is pretty heavy going. You send 1,000 copies to 
the first 1,000 names you pick at random out of the telephone book in 
Washington and you won't find many people reading it. 

Mr. Sargent. I have some tangible evidence to submit on that point 
regarding the impact of this thing on the publishing business which 
I will give you in due course. 


Mr. Hats. Let me get back to one more question we have not 
cleared up. You said you were some official in the foundation; is 
that right? 

Mr. Sargent. I am an officer in a foundation which has been incor- 
porated by myself. I left the articles here, yes. It was organized 
last August 1953. I am the president of it. It is merely a corpora- 
tion with no funds and no activities yet. 

Mr. Hays. What is the foundation supposed to do? What is 
its purpose ? 

Mr. Sargent. Its purpose is to study revolutionary movements, 
propaganda, and techniques, and to endeavor to prepare educational 
materials for the more effective combating of the advance of socialism 
and communism. 

, Mr. Hays. What has prevented you from going ahead and doing 

Mr. Sargent. One thing that has prevented it is that I have been 
surveying the ground to find sources of money which are acceptable. 
We do not want to accept money under conditions involving financial 
censorship or control of our operations. We want to be in a position 
to proceed objectively without being required to stop following some- 
thing significant because somebody's toes are being stepped on. Under 
those conditions we cannot use large foundation money, because we 
believe the result of this study will be critical to their operations. 
Therefore, we must find other patriotic money. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, you know what you are going to find 
out before you start ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, we don't. We have some idea from what we 
found. The evidence I am going to give you, if permitted, will show 
precisely why I think that is the exercise of good judgment. 

Mr. Hays. You are going to be permitted. I can stay here all 
summer if necessary. 

Mr. Sargent. May I go on, please? 

Mr. Hays. No ; I have another question I want to ask. I have to 
insist that you answer the questions, and you can go on when I am 
through asking the questions. 

Mr. Wolcott. I thought the motion was that he be allowed to con- 
clude his statement. I am very much interested in his statement. I 
am not so interested in your questions frankly. 

Mr. Hays. I know you wouldn't be. That is one reason I am ask- 
ing them. We can either go ahead or under the rules the minority can 
leave and stop the hearing. Which way do you want to do it? 

The Chairman. The other member stepped out momentarily. 

Mr. Hays. He is not here. 

The Chairman. He is available and will come back. 

Mr. Hays. We may have to leave, and I am going to insist. You 
said yesterday you would obey that rule. 

Mr. Wolcott. It is a prerogative of any Member of Congress to 
leave any committee any time he sees fit. It is also the prerogative 
of the committee to meet and adopt such rules as are necessary for 
orderly procedure. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say, Mr. Wolcott, that you are not going to gag 
the minority here. 


Mr. Wolcott. I am not trying to gag anybody. I exercise my pre- 
rogative as a Member of Congress to make any motion that is ger- 
mane to any subject before any committee of which I am a member. 

Mr. Hays. And also you have to call on the right of the chairman 
to overrule any point of order even if it is a rule of the House. In 
other words, we will make the rules as we go along. I will play that 
way, too. I have one more question. 

In other words, you are not operating, because you do not have any 

Mr. Sargent. Because we have not found acceptable money as yet. 

Mr. Hats. Don't you think if the motives of your foundation — 
and I am not questioning you on that — are what you say they are, you' 
could find some money if you look for it? 

Mr. Sargent. I have presented some applications. We are also 
studying the practical problems involved in how to carry on such 
an operation efficiently. The organization of an operation of this 
type as a new venture to fill a need which did not exist before involves 
taking steps carefully and with full consideration. I want to do a 
responsible job. There has been only a little over 6 months in the 
organization period, and we tried to do our study work first, prelim- 
inary study work, and go into the out-and-out financing element later. 

Mr. Hays. The main question, and this can be answered very briefly, 
is this : If you can get the money from the sources that you consider 
satisfactory, there won't be anybody trying to keep you from doing a 
job ; will there ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know. 

Mr. Hays. Nobody could, could they, if you have the funds? 

Mr. Sargent. I think the grip of some of these large foundations 
on the American people at the present time is something that will 
astound you. I tnink that we have a great lack of true freedom. 
There are men today who are afraid for various reasons to support 
things which they would otherwise approve of. I think you have a 
very serious condition and my evidence will reveal it. 

Mr. Hays. I don't think there is any doubt that people are afraid 
to support things they might otherwise approve of. In fact, there 
is a great noticeable lack of courage here about exploring into the 
hidden crevasses of these people who are trying to promote a Nazi 
philosophy in this country. As a matter of fact, if you ask any critical 
questions when you have certain types of people in the audience, you 
are liable to get called names, as I did yesterday. I think that cer- 
tainly is a significant commentary on the jittery state of mind of 
America at this point. 

I am not going to call you Hitler, because I disagree with you, 
and I don't mean to imply that you resemble him. But as mad as 
I would get with you, I would never call you that, because I would 
not stoop to that kind of dirty, nasty business. 

Mr. Sargent. My purpose, Mr. Chairman- 

The Chairman. Mr. Hays had completed his questioning awhile 
ago, he indicated. If so, why not proceed with your testimony, Mr. 
Sargent ? 

Mr. Sargent. Very well. Our position here also is that there should 
be and has been certainly up to now a want of access to foundation 
grants for the type of research to which I am referring, that the acid 


test here will be to determine the willingness or unwillingness of 
these large foundations, let us say, now and in the future to do this. 
If they are carrying on propaganda or trying to build or create some 
order or form of social organization of their own, they will con- 
sistently continue this policy. On the other hand, if they axe pre- 
pared now to assume their academic responsibility, these applications 
will receive consideration. 

There are a few preliminary observations 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Sargent, right there is a question. There has been 
a lot of noise around Washington and Congress that this inquiry was 
set up for one reason, to blackjack foundations into giving money for 
what they did not want to. Do you feel there is an attempt to do that ? 

Mr. Sakgent. No feeling on my part. 

Mr. Hays. None of your testimony would be inclined that way ? 

Mr. Sargent. No. I am going to give you the facts here as they 
turn up. I want to turn out to you some things that I believe are sig- 
nificant in the law. Let us consider now this tax-exemption question. 
The immediate one, of course, is that an exempt foundation pays no 
tax on its own income, which is, of course, a substantial thing. But 
that is only a fraction of the impact of these conditions. An even 
greater factor of importance is the deduction rights of the people who 
give the money to the foundations. The exemption privilege that we 
are referring to generally here is title 26, United States Code, section 
101, subsection (6), the familiar one about educational and scien- 
tific organizations not conducted for profit and not carrying on propa- 
ganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. Section 23 
(O) (2) permits individual taxpayers to deduct their contributions to 
groups of this type. Section 812 (d) recognizes the deductibility on 
estate-tax returns. In that case the deduction right is without limit. 

Therefore, if you have a foundation which is engaging in propa- 
ganda or political activity, you have in effect a front through which 
people as donors can pour money, and through that thing power, into 
this political action framework and themselves take on their estate- 
tax returns a total deduction for the whole thing, depriving the United 
States Government of all of the taxation rights on that money so given. 

Henry Ford has done it. In the case of the income tax to the extent 
of the deduction allowed, the same things prevails. 

Mr. Hats. Are you saying they put money in political campaigns ? 

Mr. Sargent. No ; I say if a foundation acts in such a slanted or dis- 
criminatory fashion as to always ignore one side and advocate the 
other side, it is a propaganda group by the mere facts in the case. If 
you are advocating only one thing, or side, you are promoting that 
side. You are not educational at all. If you are objective, you give 
critical analysis facilities to the other side. The test 

Mr. Hats. You used the term "political" in some concept. 

Mr. Sargent. I say the purpose of some of the foundation programs, 
as you will see from the evidence, is of a political nature and not in the 
sense of supporting a particular candidate, but promoting a philosophy 
and theory of government. 

Mr. Hays. Promoting any political party? 

Mr. Sargent. Using the school to build a new social order is politi- 
cal propaganda. 

Mr. Hays. Do you mean to imply they are favoring one political 
party or the other % 



Mr. Sargent. I think they are favoring the New Deal party. 

Mr. Hats. I would have gladly accepted a contribution from any 
one of the Fords. They seemed like nice people. They could con- 
tribute $5,000 in Ohio in my campaign, but they didn't. They gave it 
to the Republican Party, $25,000, as I recall. 

Mr. Sargent. I am just talking here about this foundation. 

Mr. Hays. They are a foundation. 

Mr. Sargent. Another factor here also is the leverage factor foun- 
dations exercise on the agencies they support. In the case of a uni- 
versity, they are always nip and tuck on a budget. A grant by a 
foundation of a few hundred thousand dollars can influence and guide 
the entire curriculum in the institution. The leverage factor could be 
as much as 10 to 1 on the basis of money contributed. 

Mr. Hays. I would like to ask you, Mr. Wolcott, in all friendliness, 
how is the budget of the University of Michigan derived % 

Mr. Wolcott. I don't know. 

Mr. Hays. Is it State supported ? 

Mr. Wolcott. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. They get some outside money. 

Mr. Wolcott. It is an endowed university, as I understand, and 
they get some money from outside. 

Mr. Hays. Let us not blanket them all. I know the universities in 
Ohio which are State supported come into the State legislature, Ohio 
State, Miami, Kent State, Bowling Green, and they submit their 
request in front of the proper committees, and if they can justify it, 
they get it. As a matter of fact, the criticism out there has been — I 
don't say it is justified, but you hear it a lot of times — that the uni- 
versities can get any amount of money they want from the legislature. 

Mr. Sargent. There is a leverage factor capable of being exercised, 
and it may appear in some cases that it nas been. That is my 

' We are going into the history of this movement. I referred to 1913 
as the date of the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation which was 
the second of the large funds established by the late John D. Rocke- 
feller. That had power to benefit — to promote the welfare of man- 
kind throughout the world, as I recall. His preceding foundation 
of 1903, I think it was — 1902, General Education Board — had to do 
with the promotion of education in the United States. In 1916, the 
Rockefeller fund, known as General Education Board, published a 
pamphlet by Abraham Flexner. The pamphlet was entitled, "Occa- 
sional Papers, No. 3, A Modern School." It recommended changes 
needed in American secondary education. 

Mr. Hays. Right there, you said you were not going to use names, 
and I am not criticizing you for it. 

Mr. Sargent. As the author. 

Mr. Hays. Would you mind telling us something about this Flexner 

Mr, Sargent. He wrote a book. He was identified with various 
Rockefeller benefactions, as I understand. I have not checked him 
in detail. It was not my intention to discuss Mr. Flexner, but merely 
the fact that this pamphlet was written at the time and sponsored by 
this board. That is the limit of my interest. 

Mr. Hays. What is the title? 


Mr. Sargent. Occasional Papers, No. 3, A Modern School. It was 
published by the General Education Board. A copy is in the Library 
of Congress, which I have personally examined. The recommenda- 
tions and substance made in that pamphlet are that tradition is too 
largely controlling education, that there is too much formal work and 
subjects are too remote from experience. That what is needed is a 
modern concept, what is termed a modern curriculum, where there 
should be less reliance on textbooks and an activity program ought to 
be substituted. 

Mr. Flexner advocated the experiment. The pamphlet in question 
contains the following statement of the foundation and I am quoting 
that here as I take it from my notes : 

The general education board does not endorse or promulgate any educational 
theory, but is interested in facilitating the trial of promising educational experi- 
ments under proper conditions. 

The board authorizes the publication of these papers with a request for 
criticisms and suggestions and an expression of opinion as to the desirability 
and feasibility of an experiment of this type. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

In the same year, namely 1916 

Mr. HArs. Right up to there, are you expressing a criticism of what 
you read ? 

Mr. Sargent. No ; I simply am stating it happened. I am giving 
you things that happened when they happened factually as 1 find 
them to be. I am placing no interpretations except what the material 
itself gives. If I have any other interpretations to make, I will state 
it positively. If I do not state any interpretation, none in particular 
is intended except what normally flows from what I am reading. 

Mr. Hats. As I heard you read the thing, it sounded fairly logical 
to me. 

Mr. Sargent. I am giving the history of how the thing started. 
This was the inception of the movement. 

Mr. Hays. Would you mind refraining for a minute until I can 
see if we have some agreement on a matter of procedure. If we can 
maybe we can hurry this up. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. The Chair might say we have just had another 
friendly conference, and we have reached an understanding which 
was previously announced but which the Chairman wishes to state 
will be the procedure. That is for the witness to complete his testi- 
mony without interruption, and then will be available for full question- 
ing at the conclusion of his testimony at whatever length the com- 
mittee members might feel justified in questioning. 

Mr. Hats. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, at that point that was my 
suggestion and I make it for a number of reasons, the main one of 
which is, Mr. Sargent, that I hope you won't feel that I have belabored 
this point too much, but it is very difficult to sit up here and get the 
full implication of everything that you may read without having 
anything to follow to check back and forth on. Maybe we are spoiled, 
but we have become accustomed to that at committee hearings. The 
only reason I have been interrupting you is to try to clear up in my 
own mind and perhaps in the record some of the things that seemed 
to be inferences that maybe you did not mean to be inferences as you 
now say in the last one you didn't mean to infer. You are putting 


it in, and you can read it and judge it. I will try not to interrupt 
you unless I think there is something I have lost the context and any 
interruption I make, please understand it, although I may disagree 
with you, I am not antagonistic to you. You have a right to your 
point of view. We will try to let you finish and then when we get the 
record that will be the same as if you prepared one in advance and 
submitted to us, which might have expedited. Then we will come 
back and examine you on the record. 

Mr. Sargent. I think that is perfectly all right. I think that is 
the perfect way to do it. 

Mr. Hays. The chairman and the ranking minority member agreed 
that the minority may have as much time as the conscience dictates, 
and I may make clear that the minority has no conscience, and there 
will be no limitation on time. 

The Chairman. There is no disagreement on that procedure. The 
chairman recalls that was the procedure which he announced yester- 
day when the witness first appeared, and there has been no_ other dis- 
position. But I am very glad to have a clarification of it, and we 
will proceed accordingly. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Sargent. In regard to the subject of names, I will say this 
again, and I will adhere to this strictly. Naturally, I will give the 
name of the author of the publication, because that is one of the facts 
surrounding it. It is not my intention in mentioning any names to 
infer anything else than the context itself may indicate. I am giving 
the content of certain things, and that will be read by excerpts in cer- 
tain places, and I will summarize the general result in others, but they 
represent my attempt to fairly indicate what is in the book, if I don't 
read it in full. 

Mr. Hats. I have a question right there. Yesterday you indicated 
very definitely that you thought somebody or another, I forget who it 
was now, was subversive because he said he belonged to 56 Commu- 
nist-front organizations or designated organizations. Would it be 
asking too much to say that we can assume that unless you otherwise 
designate that anybody you mention is not subversive just beeause 
you mention it, and if you think they are you will say so ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think that is quite a burden. I haven't taken the 
trouble, Mr. Hays, to go through the names and affiliations of all the 
people I mentioned. The committee staff may find a tie-in or connec- 

Mr. Hays. What I am trying to say is that just because you mention 
them, nobody should assume that they are left wingers or subversives, 

Mr. Sargent. You should not assume that they are all right because 
I mention them, or you should not assume that they are all wrong. 
I make no statement one way or another. If I find something perti- 
nent, I will mention it. 

Mr. Hays. If you find someone that belonged to a lot of front organ- 
izations, you will be sure to get that in. 

Mr. Sargent. I have not had the time to do that detail on all these 
people. I will give you a few from time to time that I think are perti- 
nent: I have read the pamphlet here published by general education 
board by Flexner. The same year, 1916, the department of educa- 
tional research was established at Teachers College, at Columbia 


University. In 1917 the Lincoln Experimental School was established 
iii New York City. The details on that experimental school which was 
under the guidance or auspices of, as I understand, the Teachers Col- 
lege, Columbia, is set forth in a pamphlet which is entitled "Intro- 
ducing Teachers College." That is also a Library of Congress 

I have taken some quotations in that pamphlet, pages 32 and 33, 
which I am reading, as follows : 

A few years later (meaning after the opening of the Teachers College) 
Teachers College by opening the Lincoln School kindled the fire which helped 
to spread progressive education. The school opened in September 1917, at 646 
Park Avenue, with Dr. Otis W. Caldwell as director. It was established as one 
phase of the large-scale Teachers College program to intensify scientific educa- 
tional research. A department of educational research had been organized at the 
college during the preceding year. About the same time I>r. Abraham Flexner 
of the general education board published a profound paper on the need for a 
modern. school to test the possibility of a secondary school better adapted to 
American needs in which mathematics, modern languages, natural and social 
sciences, rather than the discipline of ancient languages and formal studies, 
would form the basis of a cultural education. It was introduced by Dr. Flexner's 
thinking and supported by the general education board. The college developed 
plans for this experimental school. In 1922 the 123d Street Building was 
opened. Dr. Caldwell relinquished the directorship in 1917 to head the newly 
established Lincoln Institution School of Experimentation and was succeeded 
by Dr. Jesse Newlon, former superintendent of the Denver, Colo., Public Schools. 

To this rapidly expanding center of learning students began to come from 
abroad as well as from all parts of this country. It was Mr. John D. Rockefeller, 
Jr., who made it possible for Teachers College to attack this problem squarely. 
Again he showed his interest in the work of the' college by making available " 
through the International Education Board a subsidy of $100,000 a year for 10 
years to be used to establish and maintain the International Institute of Teachers 

In February 1923, Dr. Paul Monroe, who had been with the college since 1897, 
was appointed director of the institute. Dr. George S. Counts was made 
associate director a few years later. 

That is the end of that item. 

The year 1917, as you will recall, was the year in which the Bolshevik 
Revolution succeeded and took over the Government of Soviet Eussia, 
and the Kerensky government was established. 

Mr. Hays. What is the significance of that? 

Mr. Sargent. The significance of that is that in 1920 the New York 
Legislature prepared the Lusk committee report concerning revolu- 
tionary activity, pointing out the danger of such conditions in our 
country, and that the condition they found was part of the atmosphere 
surrounding the period in which this development occurred, and may 
have had some influence upon it, as I think it did, from the subsequent 
actions in that school. 

Mr. Hats. Did I understand you to say that this committee report 
said that there was revolution in the air here in 1917 % 

Mr. Sargent. I can't hear you. 

Mr. Hays. Do I understand you to say that this Lusk committee 
report indicated that there was revolution in the air here in 1917 ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, sir. That the conditions around New York City 
in particular was considered to be quite serious, and there were a great 
many intellectuals of that period who had very strong sympathies 
toward the revolutionary movement in Russia at that time. It is a 
Jong detailed report, Mr. Hays, and a very important document. It 
was published in 1920 by a committee of the New York Legislature. 

4&720— 54— pt. 1 17 


Mr. Hats. That is funny. I was around in 1917, and I have been 
around since, and I don't remember anybody thought there was much 
danger of a revolution then. 

Mr. Sargent. Among the intellectual elite there was very definitely 
such a condition during this period which is part of the history of it. 

Mr. Hays. You keep using the term "among the intellectuals" and 
"among the intellectual elite" and maybe I am reading something into 
it that is not there, but I seem to get a sort of nasty connotation. You 
are not an intellectual ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am talking about the type of intellectual that pro- 
motes this thing. They are not true intellectuals at all. They are 
bigotists. They stand for a certain thing and do not tolerate or listen 
to the views of anybody else. They are the people historically who 
have promoted revolutions. The literature is voluminous on that. 
Prof. Ludwig von Mises of New York University points out specifi- 
cally that socialism is not a revolt of the people. It is a program insti- 
gated by a special type of intellectuals that form themselves into a 
clique and bore from within and operate that way. That is the way 
these things happen. It is not a people's movement at all. It is a 
capitalizing on the people's emotions and sympathies and skillfully 
directing those sympathies toward a point these people wish to reach. 

Mr. Hays. Do all intellectuals gravitate toward that ? 

Mr. Sargent. Of course not. 

Mr. Hays. There are some good ones ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think Clarence Manion is an excellent one. 

Mr. Hays. Is he an intellectual ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think he is a true intellectual. 

Mr. Hays. There is also that connotation. There are all. shades of 

Mr. Sargent. I put it in quotes. 

Mr. Hays. That is when you begin to get people reading meanings 
into it, because they think you mean them to read a meaning into it, 
because it is in quotes, or it would not be in quotes. I want you to 
define "egg head" before we finish this. You denned that yesterday. 

Mr. Sargent. I think we will get down to that. If you want a quick 
picture of this revolt of the so-called intellectual group during this 
period, you will find that in Frederick Lewis Allen's book, Only Yes- 
terday, discussion at page 228. He describes the atmosphere of the 
period in very clear terms. 

In 1920, Prof. Harold Rugg began introducing pamphlets of hi$ in 
this Lincoln Experimental School operated under the auspices of 
Columbia University. 

Mr. Hays. By Rockefeller money, is that right ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know whether he physically printed these 
pamphlets with Rockefeller money or not. 

Mr. Hays. You say they gave him $100,000 a year to run the school. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes ; but I didn't say that Rockefeller paid for the 
specific printing of the pamphlets. I think what I did say was that 
Rockefeller money supported the school and a substantial amount of 
money went into it. 

Mr. Hays. Did I understand you to say Rockefeller himself gave 
that money ? 


Mr. Sargent. No; General Education Board, it says here. My 
authority on that is Columbia's own pamphlet entitled, "Introducing 
Teachers College." 

It says here, as I was reading, it was Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 
who made it possible for Teachers College to attack the problem. The 
money, it says here, was a subsidy of $100,000 a year for 10 years 
through International — wait a minute — through International Edu- 
cation Board. That is one of the Rockefeller funds. 

Mr. Hats. Apparently from the way you read it, Mr. John D. 
Rockefeller, Jr., had something personal to do with it. 

Mr. Sargent, That is what Teachers College says. I didn't say it, 
I am reading what Teachers College said about their own operation. 
That is their own statement which I am reading to you literally. The- 
second sentence would seem to indicate that their International Edu- 
cation Board did. In any event, it had the support through some 
Rockefeller operation of some type. These pamphlets which Prof. 
Harold Rugg developed at the Lincoln Experimental School subse- 
quently became — were developed into the so-called Rugg social science 
textbook series. 

One of the original pamphlets was called, Building a Science of 
Society for the Schools. \ 

At this point it is a little bit out of the chronology but in the interest 
of tying things together all at one point, perhaps I better give you 
something about what these Rugg social science textbooks turned out 
to be. 

The period during the 1920's until about 1930 was the development 
period, and then they finally came out in a series of books for the 
high-school level as I recall. Those books became very controversial 
nationally, and Professor Rugg, in one of his own statements in a 
magazine article, claimed as I recall that about 5 million of them had 
been distributed and put in the American public schools. There was 
a controversy in the San Francisco City Board of Education regard- 
ing these texts arising out of some citizens protest against the material, 
and the superintendent's recommendation that the books be taken out. 

Mr. Hays. Were you one of the citizens who protested? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir, I was not. 

Mr. Hays. Weren't you mixed up in that fight ? 

Mr. Sargent. I was requested to come in and give evidence which 
I had, but I did not initiate the proceeding. I did come in and I 
spoke in opposition to the books, having read them, and I protested the 
treatment given the Constitution of the United States in particular, 
and constitutional history. 

This is a copy of an official, report of the San Francisco Board of 
Education. The controversy began, as I remember, about May or 
June of 1952, when there were public hearings. The board decided 
to appoint a panel of experts, nearly all men of education, to read the 
books themselves and render a report. 

The members of that committte to study the books and report back 
were Monroe Deutsch, who was then at the University of California, 
provost, I think, at the university ; Glenn E. Hoover, of Mills College, 
a college for women in the San Francisco area ; John L. Horn, I don't 
recall his academic contact at the time; Lloyd Luckmann, I think he 


was at the University of San Francisco ; Edgar E. Robinson was pro- 
fessor of history at Stanford University ; and Harold R. McKinnon 
was a member of the San Francisco bar. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, did you prepare a bill of grievances rela- 
tive to these textbooks you are talking about % 

Mr. Sargent. Not with relation to the Rugg books, no. I prepared 
that very much later. I did prepare it, yes, and it was filed with 
Congress. I have a copy here. It was filed with Congress about 1949, 
as I remember. Yes, April 1949 is the notary date on the document. 

Mr. Hats. It was filed with the Senate Labor and Welfare Com- 

Mr. Sargent. It was originally delivered to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and the House Un-American Activities Committee. I 
think Senator McCarran offered a resolution to take up the investiga- 
tion and the parliamentarian referred it to the House Committee 
on Labor and Welfare. It is the Thomas committee. The Thomas 
committee did nothing about it. 

Mr. Hats. Let me say this to keep the record straight. If Sena- 
tor McCarran offered a resolution, it could not possibly be referred 
to a House committee. 

Mr. Sargent. I didn't mean to say the House committee. I meant 
the Senate committee. 

Mr. Hats. You said the House committee. 

Mr. Sargent. It was inadvertence on my part. The parliamen- 
tarian of the Senate ruled that it concerned education, more strictly, 
than constitutional government and so on, and therefore it belonged 
in the Thomas committee. Senator Thomas of Utah was in the Sen- 
ate at the time. 

Mr. Hats. It has laid there rather dusty ever since. 

Mr. Sargent. He sat on it and did nothing about it. 

Mr. Hats. It could not get dusty if he sat on it. 

Mr. Sargent. AH right. In any event that document was pre- 
pared years later than this matter to which I refer. I was reading 
from the San Francisco report. I gave the names of the signers. 

Mr. Hats. Let me ask you another question while we are talking 
about this before we get too far away from it. Did you try to get 
the House Un-American Activities to go into this ? 

Mr. Sargent. I discussed it with them. 

Mr. Hats. They did not want to do it? 

Mr. Sargent. They wanted to stick with the Communist side of 
the case, yes. They said they wanted to place emphasis on that first. 

Mr. Hats. You say you suggested that they take it up but they 
didn't do anything about it. I couldn't hear your answer. 

Mr. Sargent. As a matter of fact, they did do something. They 
started with it. Mr. Wood of Georgia was chairman of the commit- 
tee at the time and he did — I think they did send out some question- 
naires to a few colleges, but they went no further than that. 

Mr. Hays. Did you offer to testify before them ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't recall I was ever asked. It never came to 
that point, because there was no resolution offered. The House 
Un-American Activities Committee needs no resolution, I believe. 

Mr. Hats. What I am driving at, and I will be very frank about 
it, is this: It seems to me you have sort of been itching to get this 
stuff in print for a long time, and you were not able to get anybody 


to let you go ahead with it until you came here. Is that right or 
wrong? You gave it to this and that committee. You say one sat 
on it, and the other never took it up, and we are going to let you say 
it here. 

Mr. Sargent. I have not been running around in any such fashion. 
It is a matter of public importance and I think I am entitled to pre- 
sent it. 

Mr. Hays. I don't mean to imply that you were running around, 
but the record shows by your testimony that you tried to get two dif- 
ferent committees to take it up, and they didn't. 

Mr. Sargent. The committees considered the matter and there was 
some preliminary discussion. For policy reasons they decided not to 
go forward with it at that time. 

Mr. Hays. Okay. 

Mr. Sargent. At that time, period. 

Mr. Hays. Or any subsequent time since. 

Mr. Sargent. I am not in a position to state what various com- 
mittees may or may not want to do. I am here for the purpose of 
presenting this matter now. This report, and I will read it in full, is 
dated March 30, 1943. It is the unanimous report bearing the signa- 
tures of all the gentlemen I have named. The chairman of the com- 
mittee was Dr. Monroe E. Deutsch of the University of California. 
It is addressed to Mr. Harry I. Christie, president of the San Francisco 
Board of Education at the city hall, San Francisco. 

Deae Mb. Chbistie : The committee set up by action of the San Francisco Board 
of Education to submit a report as to whether or not the Rugg books should be 
continued as basic textbooks in the junior high schools of the San Francisco 
Unified School District, begs leave to submit the following report. It would 
preface its statement of findings with certain preliminary remarks. 

The report herewith presented is unanimously approved by all members of 
the committee; certain members, however, are submitting statements giving 
supplementary reasons for joining in the recommendations. 

Moreover, before submitting its statements the committee wishes to make 
this declaration ; it is most unfortunate that the controversy over these books 
has become so bitter that an evaluation of the content and contribution of the 
books has been frequently confused with an evaluation of the character and 
motives of the persons involved. We have confined our attention to the books. 

The committee desires to make clear its own conception of the function it 
has been asked to perform. Obviously we are not acting as an administrative 
board; nor are we acting as a group of teachers choosing a textbook or con- 
structing a curriculum. We have been asked to function as a committee in the 
field of education, and although we have been nominated by six institutions 
of higher learning, we sign as individuals, as we have conferred as a group of 
individuals and were asked to give our considered opinion after careful study. 
One question has concerned us — and upon this we give our answer. Do the books 
under our examination provide, in accord with a sound and satisfactory concep- 
tion of education, a fair and balanced presentation of the facts of our past and 
our present in such a way as to be desirable as required textbooks for students 
of the junior high school age in the San Francisco schools? The committee finds 
that in form and style the books are attractive and interesting, and we believe 
that this is ample explanation of their popularity with students and teachers 
and many others who have read them. The contemporary world is seen as 
having no boundaries of interest and the unity of the world is emphasized. We 
agree with these objectives so effectively stated. 

But we question the concept of education on which these textbooks are founded. 
Of course we agree as to the vital importance of our democracy — in the present 
as in the past, and in the future, but it does not follow that belief in democracy 
means acceptance of a method of education which directs the main attention of 
young students, usually between 12 and 15 years of age, to a discussion of ques- 
tions and seeing all sides rather than the study of geography and history and 


literature. We do not believe in the study of problems as a satisfactory method 
of education for children of that age. 

The unsound basis in teaching is revealed in the overemphasis upon the future 
and upon change rather than the fact of growth and development as a continuous 
process in all times. The weight of instruction is placed not upon achieve- 
ments and accomplishments but upon aspirations and hopes. This concept of 
teaching is revealed in repeated assertions of the need of rebuilding and recre- 
ating. Such an approach is not in accord with the guiding purpose of general 
education which is to furnish information as a reservoir of fact and to provide 
basis for growth and development. The pedagogical principles upon which these 
books are built disregard the fundamental fact that foundations of basic knowl- 
edge and skills must be laid before pupils are given the impression they are 
ready to deal with contemporary problems. 

Believing as we do that one of the great objectives of education of young 
people is the development of a desire to participate in a democracy, we find that 
these books are unsatisfactory in not providing a conviction of the need of long 
study and careful thought before arriving at decisions and presuming to take 
action. These books are built upon the assumption that it is one of the functions 
of the school, indeed it appears at times to be the chief function, to plan in the 
classroom, yes, even in the junior high schools, the future of society. From 
this view we emphatically dissent. Moreover, the books contain a constant em- 
phasis on our national defects. Certainly we should think it a great mistake to 
picture our Nation as perfect or flawless either in its past or its present, but it is 
our conviction that these books give a decidedly distorted impression through 
overstressing weaknesses and injustices. They therefore tend to weaken the 
student's love for his country, respect for its past, and confidence in its future. 
Accordingly, to answer the question submitted to us by the board of education, we 
unanimously recommend that the Rugg books should not be continued as basic 
textbooks in the San Francisco junior high schools. We likewise recommend that 
the books to be substituted for them be chosen by the established procedure ac- 
cording to which a committee of teachers submits recommendations as to text- 
books. We approve of this procedure in the San Francisco schools and favor its 
continuance. We feel, however, that the teachers in the schools should call upon 
scholarly experts in the particular field of study in which textbooks are to be 
selected for an appraisal of the books from the standpoint of accuracy and per- 

It is our earnest hope that the choice of textbooks may always be made here- 
after through the proper educational procedure. Their selection is certainly a 
matter to be determined by those who are devoting their lives to education. 

There was a supplemental statement here by Glenn E. Hoover as 
follows : 

The controversy over the Rugg books arose primarily because they were de- 
nounced as subversive. This charge was made, not by the scholars and teachers 
who use them, but by individuals and organizations whose normal activities are 
quite outside of the field of public education ; that charge is a serious one for it 
reflects not only on Professor Rugg, but also on the great university with which 
he is connected, and the teachers and administrators in the public schools where 
these books have been used for so many years. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sargent, if you have reached the point, some 
of the members wish to be on the floor for the convening of the House 
in connection with the preliminary proceedings of the House, so it 
would be necessary for us to recess at this time. 

Mr. Sargent. May I read one paragraph and finish this statement 
and then stop ? It will take a moment. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sargent (reading) : 

I feel it my duty to report the charge that the Rugg books are subversive, in 
the accepted sense of the word, is, in my opinion, completely without foundation. 
Although I found what seems to me to be serious defects in them, I am glad 
to bear witness to the high patriotism of their author and the teachers who 
without complaint have used them for so long. The patrons of the schools which 
have adopted these books have the right to be assured on that point. 

Glenn E. Hooveb. 


There is another statement I will refer to this afternoon. 

Mr. Hays. I would like the record to show right at this point that 
despite the fact that you say you could not prepare a statement for the 
committee, that you have been reading for about 25 minutes from a 
prepared statement. 

Mr. Sargent. From a document, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will reconvene at 2 o'clock, if that 
is agreeable, and then we will run as the business on the floor per- 
mits us to run. 

(Thereupon, at 11: 55 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. the 
same day.) 


(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and you may 
proceed, Mr. Sargent. 

Mr. Sargent. I understand the mikes are not on. I will try to talk 
a little louder, so that you can hear me. 

The Chairman. You may go ahead. 

Mr. Sargent. At the hour of adjournment, I was discussing the San 
Francisco report on the Rugg social science text books. I read the 
majority report. I also read a separate statement by Mr. Glenn E. 
Hoover. There is a concurring statement by Harold R. McKinnon, 
of San Francisco. I will not read it at length. It is long. I will read 
certain excerpts which I think indicate the nature of his thinking 
and his additional reasons for disapproving the books, because I 
think those reasons are pertinent to matters contained in your staff 

These are some of the things which Mr. McKinnon said in con- 
curring in this finding : 

What Professor Rugg is trying to do is to achieve a social reconstruction 
through education. The end in view is a new social order in which all the 
aspects of human relationships, including the political and economic, are to 
be refashioned and rebuilt. The means by which this end is to be accomplished 
is education. 

In presenting these problems, the author is far from neutral. 
He discusses natural law and says : 

The lack of an underlying assumption of moral law which is inherent in 
human nature and which is the norm of good conduct, of happiness, and of 
socially desirable traits, is evident throughout the texts. Professor Rugg, of 
course, rejects such an idea of law. 

Another comment : 

Nothing is more insistent in the books than the idea of change. From the 
habit of denying facts and fixed realities, Professor Rugg proceeds to the notion 
of trial and error in all human affairs. One is never sure one is right. Since 
everything changes, there is nothing upon which one can build with perma- 
nence. Experiment is the rule in social affairs as well as in physical science — 
experiment in government, in education, in economics, and in family life. 

Mr. McKinnon refers to the antireligious bias in the books and says : 

Throughout the books runs an antireligious bias. In some instances, this 
takes the form of caricaturing religion; for example, by saying "medieval 
Europeans found life so hard and so unhappy that most of them eagerly turned 
their thoughts to a dream of heaven." 


In his concluding statement, Mr. McKinnon says : 

In the light of the foregoing, should the textbooks of Professor Rugg be con- 
tinued in the junior high schools of San Francisco? I think clearly they 
should not. I say this with the realization that such a conclusion must not be 
jasserted except for reasons that are grave and fundamental. No mere inci- 
dental error and no characteristic which does not sink deeply into the funda- 
mentals of human nature would suffice for such an adverse recommendation. 

He goes on to say : 

America, in spite of all its faults, has achieved something in the history of 
social and political life which has borne rich fruit and which may bear richer 
jprovided we do not lose the thread. But this is the condition : provided we 
do not lose the thread. 

What is that thread? It is the concept upon which our country was founded, 
that man is a rational being who possesses rights and duties. 

Mr. McKinnon quotes the Declaration of Independence, particu- 
larly the clause about the fact that men are endowed by their Creator 
with unalienable rights and it is the Government's duty to sustain 

He then says: 

The conflicts between Professor Rugg's philosophy and these principles of 
the Declaration are irreconcilable. Men are created equal only if they are 
spiritual beings. It is in their spiritual, moral nature that their equality alone 
can be found. 

Finally, he says : 

It is true that social conditions and circumstances change. The point is that 
the principles themselves do not change, for they are inherent in the nature of 
man, a nature which does not change. Because Professor Rugg's teachings are 
contrary to this notion * * * I am compelled to join in the recommendation that 
his books be discontinued. In placing my recommendation on this ground, I do 
not imply that I am at variance with my colleagues on the other grounds which 
they assert. On the contrary, I am in general agreement with them as to those 
grounds. But I wish to stress the points I have made, because I consider them 
ultimate and fundamental. 

Now, various charges were made before the San Francisco City 
Board of Education before the rendition of that report. The board 
adopted the findings of its committee of experts, and the books were 

I have here a pamphlet used in the presentation before the board r 
which summarizes the nature of the objections lodged before the board 
by those protesting. I do not intend to read this at length, but I will 
merely give you some of the major contentions made by those whose 
position was sustained in this proceeding. 

Complaint was made of the undermining process involved here by 
implanting a continual expectancy of change in the minds of students 
of immature age in schools ; of the fact that the American way of life 
has been portrayed as a failure; of the disparaging of the United 
States Constitution and the motives of the men who framed it. 

Mr. Hats. What are you reading from now ? 

Mr. Sargent. From a pamphlet here entitled "Undermining Our 
Republic," prepared by the Guardians of American Education, Inc.* 
51 East 42d Street, New York City. 

These pamphlets were delivered to the members of the board of 
education and considered by them in connection with their decision to- 
appoint a committee and later to rule upon the books. 

Mr. Hatb. Well, now, if you are going to cite this organization as 
an authority, I think it would be only fair that we know a little bit 


about who they are. I never heard of them before. It is a self- 
appointed organization, I take it, from the title. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. I am merely using it, Mr. Hays, for the purpose 
•of enumerating the specific grounds made at that hearing to the boardj 
the kind of protests that were made. I am not offering the pamphlet 
in detail. 

Mr. Hats. Of course, not being an attorney, I am at somewhat of a 
•disadvantage here, but I have always understood that when you offered 
anything in evidence, in order for it to have much weight it had to have 
■some standing. 

I do not know anything about that pamphlet, but it seems to me up 
to now it would not have very much weight, unless you can give it some 

Mr. Sargent. I can tell you what the organization is. It is founded 
: by Colonel Rudd of New York City, who, as a citizen, discovered the 
propaganda in these social science textbooks. One is "Rugg" and the 
other is "Rudd." The man who protested the books is Mr. Rudd, and 
the other is like rug on the floor. 

This pamphlet contains a detailed study of the material. I am 
merely using it for my convenience in enumerating the kinds of objec- 
tions that were made here to the books. 

Mr. Hats. When we get around to some of these things, this may 
not seem to have very much weight, but on the other hand it is an 
•example of what I mean. Maybe you did not attend, but there was a 
meeting, and you perhaps know about it, of the Sons of the American 
Revolution, in Cincinnati in 1953. Right? 

Mr. Sargent. You mean the national congress? I was not there. 

Mr. Hats. Did they have a congress in 1953 ? 

. Mr. Sargent. Yes, they have one every year. That year, I think 
it was in Cincinnati. I was not present. 

Mr. Hats. Is your foundation Patriotic Education, Inc. ? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir, no connection with it. 

Mr. Hats. Do you know anything about that organization ? 

Mr. Sargent. I know some members of the organization created 
-such a corporation. I am not a member of it and have nothing to do 
-with its work. 

Mr. Hats. Does it have any standing at all ? 

Mr. Sargent. What do you mean ? 

Mr. Hats. I mean is it a reliable organization? 

Mr. Sargent. As far as I know. I know very little about it, except 
i;hat such an organization was established. 

Mr. Hats. What we are trying to get at : Would it be the kind of 
an organization you bring in here and cite as saying so and so and 
•expect the committee to give it weight? 

Mr. Sargent. They have no publications which the committee could 
receive here, so far as I know. It is in no way involved in this present 

Mr. Hats. They had a publication in Cincinnati in which they had 
a picture of Bishop Oxnam and a hammer and sickle, denouncing him 
and calling him Communist. I just wonder if that is the kind of or- 
ganization cited. I am a little concerned. 

Mr. Sargent. We are just talking about the organization known as 
Guardians of American Education, Inc., here, and it has done nothing 


like that. I don't know very much about the work of the other 

Mr. Hays. What qualifications does Mr. Rudd have? 

Mr. Sargent. He has made a very intensive study of the propa- 
ganda and history of this movement. He was requested by the Senate 
Internal Security Committee to testify before them as an expert on 
some educational matters. 

Mr. Hats. That is interesting. How do you get to be an expert on 
these things? 

Mr. Sargent. I wouldn't know. The gentlemen here presumed I 
had something to tell them, and I presume I am an expert. 

Mr. Hays. I was thinking of Mr. Rudd. What about him ? 

Mr. Sargent. He has studied this subject for years and knows the 
literature and was of great assistance to me in becoming acquainted 
with it. I think if you read this book you will discover that he has 
a great deal of basic knowledge. This pamphlet shows that he studied 
the history of the subversive movement as it applies particularly to 
these books. But I am using this only in an enumeration of the 
grounds made there, and this pamphlet was delivered to the San Fran- 
cisco Board of Education in connection with its deliberations. I gave 
them these pamphlets. I happened to have them at the time. 

I know of no derogatory fact about the Guardians of American 
Education, Inc., at any time since I have been acquainted with their 
work, commencing about 1942, and running down to the present time. 
In my opinion they are entirely reliable. 

Mr. Hays. I was not meaning to imply that there was anything 
derogatory. I am trying to get the idea across that I don't know any- 
thing about them, and I just wonder how they get in here. 

Mr. Sargent. They have been an active organization. Their main 
project is opposing the use of these books in the schools which the 
San Francisco Board of Education found unfit and condemned. 
That has been their major activity, so far as I know. 

Mr. Hays. Did any other school board anywhere condemn these 
books ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think they have been condemned in many places .; 

Mr. Hays. Do you know of any specifically ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not acquainted with all the record. I can find 
out. I know they have been protested all over the country. I don't 
have a documentation on where and how many. They were elimi- 
nated throughout the State of California, as a result of this finding of 
the San Francisco board. There is a long record of protest on ;thoae 

Another exception taken to these books was the technique of em- 
ploying a school system as an agency to build a new social order in 
a classroom. They cited Professor Rugg's intent to use the schools 
for his particular type of propaganda. 

There are many other comments here, but that was the substance 
of it, and the decision I have given you. 

Now, one of the next significant documents in tracing this matter 
is a pamphlet known as Dare the School Build a New Social Order? 
I have here a typewritten copy of that document. It is a book which 
is out of print. The Library of Congress has an original. My type- 


written copy is a prepared copy, however, and I am working from 
that. The author of the pamphlet is George S. Counts, who was at 
this time and may still be a professor of education at Teachers College 
in Columbia University, New York City. 

The pamphlet was published — the copyright notice is 1932 — by 
John Day Co., New York. 

The foreword to the pamphlet, signed by George S. Counts, bears 
the date April 15, 1932, and says that the pamphlet is based upon 
three papers read at national educational meetings in February of 
that year, namely, the year 1932 ; that one was read before the Pro- 
gressive Education Association in Baltimore, a second before a 
Division of the Department of Superintendents in Washington, and 
a third before the National Council of Education, also in Washington. 

It says the titles of these pamphlets were as follows : "Dare Pro- 
gressive Education be Progressive?"; "Education Through Indoctri- 
nation" ; and "Freedom, Culture, Social Planning, and Leadership." 

It states that because of the many requests received for these papers, 
they have now been combined, and issued in pamphlet form. And 
this pamphlet I have here is the composite of those particular papers, 

Mr. Hays. They have a great deal of interest, you said? 

Mr. Sargent. Profound interest ; yes. 

Mr. Hats. So much of an influence that it is now in print? 

Mr. Sargent. No, it had an influence at the time it was picked up. 
And you look through the writings of the various educational associa- 
tions and you find this philosophy planted at that time has taken hold. 

Mr. Hats. Is there anything else wrong with Dr. Counts' philos- 
ophy ? He wrote a lot of books. Is that the only one you find fault 

Mr. Sargent. I think there are a good many that you can question, 
and I am going to refer to some of those in his activities as I go 
along. I am giving you considerable detail on Professor Counts. He 
is the man responsible probably more than any other for subverting 
the public school system, his philosophy, his political activities. That 
is directly sustained by his writings, which I will give to you. 

Now, this pamphlet here includes the following statements : 

We are convinced that education is the one unfailing remedy for every ill 
to which man is subject, whether it be vice, crime, war, poverty, riches, injustice, 
racketeering, political corruption, race hatred, class conflict, or just plain ordi- 
nary sin. We even speak glibly and often about the general reconstruction of 
society through the school. We cling to this faith in spite of the fact that the 
very period in which our troubles have multiplied so rapidly has witnessed 
an unprecedented expansion in organized education. 

He says: 

If an educational movement or any other movement calls itself progressive, 
it must have orientation. It must possess direction. The word itself implies 
moving forward, and moving forward can have little meaning in the absence 
of clearly denned purposes. 

He says : 

The weakness of progressive education thus lies in the fact that it has 
elaborated no theory of social welfare unless it be that of anarchy or extreme 


He says : 

If progressive education is to be genuinely progressive, it must emancipate 
itsejf from the influence of this class — 

namely, the conservative class^ — 

facing squarely every social issue, coming to grips with life in all of its stark 
reality, establish an organic relation with the community * * * fashion a com- 
pelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened 
than it is today of the bogies of imposition and indoctrination. This brings us 
to the most crucial question in education, the question of the nature and extent 
of the influence which the school should exercise over the development of the 

He says among other things: 

It is a fallacy that the school shall be impartial in its emphasis and that no 
bias should be given to instruction. 

He says: 

My thesis is that complete impartiality is utterly impossible. 

Mr. Hats. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. Sargent. With that ? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. 

Mr. Sargent. No, I think at the proper grade level it is not impos- 
sible at all. I think at the lower grade level it is your duty to teach 
positive emphasis in support of established principles in our Con- 

Mr. Hats. The only difference between this fellow and you is that 
you want to teach your principle and he wants to teach his. 

Mr. Sargent. No, I want to teach the law of the United States. 

The law of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, 
the statute of July 4, 1776, and the Constitution, and the fundamentals 
upon which our country is based. 

Mr. Hays. Now, I can make a better demagogic speech about the 
Declaration of Independence than you can, and I will bet you on it. 

Mr. Sargent. That is not a demagogic speech. That is in the 

Mr. Hays. And we all revere the Declaration of Independence, and 
let's just admit that and admit that we do. But you know something? 
When you teach the Declaration of Independence, it is a limited docu- 
ment, and you can't spend a 12-year curriculum on it. You have to 
teach a little arithmetic and some reading. I gather that you want 
to dismiss social science from the curriculum, and maybe we could 
agree to do that. But you cannot subvert historical facts. 

I am not expert, and I want that in the record, but I will bet you 
that I know more about teaching than you do. And you sit here and 
tell us what has happened and what hasn't happened and what you 
want to happen, and you disagree with this fellow and that fellow. 

Well, you have got that privilege, but that does not make them bad 
people just because you disagree with them. 

Mr. Sargent. Harold Rugg has distorted his historical facts. 

Mr. Hays. We are talking about George Counts. 

Mr. Sargent. I would like to talk about George Counts, and I 
would like to go on with it. 

Mr. Hays. Is he still living? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know. I presume so. I think he is. He may 
still be at Columbia. I don't know. 


Mr. Hats. If he is living, we ought to bring him in. 
Mr. Sargent. I think it would be an excellent idea. I want to be 
present when you do. 

He goes on to state in his pamphlet that — 

Professor Dewey, in the book referred to, Democracy and Education, says, 
"The school should provide a purified environment for the child," with this view 
I would certainly agree. Probably no person reared in our society would favor 
the study of pornography in the schools. 

Then he says: 

I am sure, however, this means stacking the cards in favor of the particular 
system of value which we may happen to possess. 

Then he goes on here further. He says : 

Progressive education wishes to build a new world but refuses to be held 
accountable for the kind of world it builds. 

He says : 

In my judgment the school should know what it is doing insofar as it is 
humanly possible and accept responsibility for its acts. 

There was further agitation by Professor Counts at about this 
period, resulting in the issuance of a pamphlet known as A Call to 
the Teachers of the Nation that was issued in 1933 by a committee of 
the Progressive Education Association, of which George S. Counts 
was the chairman. It was published by John Day Co. of New York. 
The committee consisted of George S. Counts, chairman, Merle E. 
Curt, John S. Gambs, Sidney Hook, Jesse H. Newlan, Willard W. 
Beatty, Charles L. S. Easton, Goodwin Watson, and Frederick 

I have here a quotation from that pamphlet— it is in the Library of 
Congress — which contains the net conclusion in this particular report. 

It says — and I quote : 

The progressive-minded teachers of the country must unite in a powerful 
organization militantly devoted to the building of a better social order *"* *. 
In the defense of its members against the ignorance of the masses and the malev- 
olence of the privileged, such an organization would have to be equipped with the 
material resources, the talent, the legal talent, and the trained intelligence to 
wage successful war in the press, the courts, and the legislative chambers of 
the Nation. To serve the teaching profession in this way should be one of the 
major purposes of the Progressive Education Association. 

Gentlemen, if that is not lobbying, I do not understand the meaning 
of that term. 

Mrs. Ppost. Mr. Sargent, are these books and accounts that you are 
giving us material that has been paid for by the foundations through 
donations ? 

Mr. Sargent. I have no idea. They represent the philosophy of 
these people, and I am connecting this up by showing that the people 
who did it had contact with institutions enjoying foundation support. 

Mr. Hays. You are not connecting anything up. Let me say to 
you that this investigation has to do with foundations. 

Now, you can disagree with Mr. Counts' philosophy or you can not 
disagree with it. I do not care whether you do or do not. I do not 
know enough about it to take a position. So it is lobbying. If I accept 
your assertion there at face value, is there anything wrong with this 
fellow lobbying? What are you doing? What have you been doing % 

You have been doing a lot of lobbying over the years. 


Mr. Sargent. I am not lobbying. I am here at your request under 

Mr. Hays. You are not here at my request. 

Mr. Sargent. I am sorry if I am unwelcome. 

Mr. Hays. You are not unwelcome. Eight here would be a good 
place for this, Mr. Chairman. I had a phone call last night, just to 
show you what this hearing is attracting, from somebody, some 
woman. She said, "I am doing a sequel to the Kinsey report, and I 
was wondering if I couldn't come before your committee." 

I said, "You are doing a sequel to the Kinsey report?" 

She said, "Well, it wouldn't be named as that, but that is what it 
would really be. And had I been able to have gotten out mine in 
the beginning, the Kinsey report would have been practically useless." 

Now, I could go ahead and read this, but that gives you an indica- 
tion of the kind of people, I guess she wants to come in and testify. 
She went on to say, I read in your hearing that Carnegie gave Kinsey 
some money. Do you think I could get some?" She said Mr. Dodd 
said that, and I said, "Mr. Dodd is closer to Carnegie than I am. Why 
don't you call him. I will be glad to give you his phone number." 

That is how I had to get rid of her. I just offer that as an indication 
■of what we can get into here and maybe what are are already into. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, I think for Mrs. Pfost's benefit I 
might note that the Progressive Education Association is a tax-free 
organization, and it in turn has received very substantial grants from 
other foundations. That will come out later. 

Mr. Hays. But, Mr. Wormser, as I get the connection here, all I 
see in connection with that here is that Dr. Counts said something fav- 
orable about it. But the witness himself says that he has no evidence 
that the foundations gave any money to publish this pamphlet. And 
certainly Dr. Counts or Dr. Anybody else can publish anything they 
want to, I guess, up to now. 

Mr. Sargent. But they did give money to support the ideas set 
forth in that pamphlet. That is a fact, and it will be connected up. 

Mr. Hays. You might be getting some concrete evidence. But you 
have been one who has been very solicitous here about wasting time. 
You have got all this stuff written out. 

Apparently by vote of the committee we can not do anything about 
it and they are going to let you sit there until kingdom come or 
doomsdays and read it. So why don't we just put the whole shebang 
in the record, print it up, and then call you in when we have time to look 
it over and ask you a few questions about it. 

Mr. Sargent. I would like to go on, sir. 

Mr. Hays. I know you would like to go on. You have been trying 
to get before a congressional committee for years, and apparently you 
are enjoying it. 

But I think it is a waste of time. 

Mr. Sargent. I think this is quite pertinent. I have here an impor- 
tant document. This is a photostat of the announcement of the sum- 
mer sessions at Moscow University to be held in the year 1935. The 
American Advisory Organization on that consisted of George S. 
Counts and Heber Harper. The total number of names mentioned 
here is 25. I will read them in the order in which they appear in 
the pamphlet. 

The first two are the ones I have named. 


Mr. Hays. Just a minute. What is that to prove? 

Mr. Sargent. It shows the indoctrination course scheduled for 
American educators at Moscow University in the summer of 1935 
and bears an intimate relation to the propagandizing of the American 
school system and will tie in with the foundation grants your com- 
mittee is inquiring into. 

Mr. Hays. That isn't the university at Moscow, Idaho, is it ? 

Mr. Sargent. This is printed in English, probably in New York 
City. The National Education Association issued an advertisement 
sponsoring this project in March 1935 in their journal. 

The Chairman. Since Mrs. Pfost comes from Idaho, she is particu- 
larly interested in this. 

Mr. Sargent. Moscow, not United States of America, let us say. 

The National Advisory Council on this summer session of 1935 con- 
sisted of : 

W. W. Charters, director, Bureau of Educational Kesearch, Ohio 
State University ; Harry Woodburn Chase — 

Mr. Hays. Would you mind going back ? I was called out. 

Mr. Sargent. I thought you had left us for the time being. 

Mr. Hays. Oh, no. I would never leave this interesting speech. 

Would you start over, there, until we make some sequence about 
Ohio State University ? 

Mr. Sargent. Well, I read the first two names in the first place, 
Counts and Harper. Then, the National Advisory Council, on the 
opening page of this thing, consists of the following people : 

W. W. Charters, director, Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio 
State University 

Mr. Hays. Now, then, right there. This is an advertisement you 
are reading? 

Mr. Sargent. No; there is a formal official announcement of the 
course of study listing the actual courses to be given over there, the 
hours, the credit, and the entire arrangement. 

Mr. Hays. Now, was that ever held? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes; definitely. 

Mr. Hays. That is the same outfit that Joe McCarthy accused Mur- 
row of sponsoring, isn't it? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know whether he did or not. 

Mr. Hays. You know good and well it is. 

Mr. Sargent. Murrow is on the list, and I have always understood 
that it was held all right. I have been told that it was held. I think 
everybody admits it was held. 

Mr. Hays. Ed Murrow says it wasn't. Can you name anybody that 
says it was? I mean, I am just interested in finding out. If it was 
held, that is one thing. But if it is a phony you are dragging in here, 
that is another thing. 

Mr. Sargent. This is no phony. This has been referred to many 
times, and I have never heard anybody deny the fact that such a 
session was held. This is an official announcement for the holding of 
a meeting. 

It has a study tour, and the whole thing. 

Mr. Hays. I assume that that is what it is. But the question I am 
asking is that you say it had a terrific effect in indoctrinating these 
people. The mere fact that the ad appeared didn't indoctrinate any- 


Mr. Sargent. That is an announcement of the meeting. 

Mr. Hats. If they went there and. studied, I will go along with you ; 
they probably got indoctrinated. But I am trying to find out from 
you if it was ever held. 

Mr. Sargent. It is my understanding that definitely it was held in 
accordance with this announcement here. 

Mr. Hats. That is your understanding. Can you offer any 

Mr. Sargent. I have discussed the matter with various people in 
this field, and that is the information given to me, that it was held. 
Until this moment, I have never heard anybody say it wasn't. 

The Chairman. You might check a little further on that and advise 
us more definitely. 

Mr. Hats. Now just a minute. If we are going to have more check- 
ing, let's leave the whole business until we get it checked. What I 
would like to know right now : Can we have an agreement to bring in 
Dr. Counts and let him tell us his story about it? Is he still living,, 
Mr. Wormser? 

Mr. Wormser. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Hats. He must be getting pretty old now. 

Mr. Dodd. No ; he is in his middle sixties. 

Mr. Hays. I thought he was older than that. I heard his name 
when I was in the university many years ago. 

Mr. Sargent. This is an official announcement. 

Mr. Hays: Just a minute. 

Let us let the committee decide what we are going to do. Don't be 
too eager. 

Can we get an agreement at this time that at an appropriate time, 
to be decided when the appropriate time is — I will be glad to leave that 
to the Chair — this can be done. 

The Chairman. I see no objection. Then it will be agreed. 

Mr. Hats. I have more than one motive. I had to read one of his 
books when I was in college, and I always did want to ask him some- 

Mr. Sargent. The second name was Harry Woodburn Chase, 
chancellor of New York University ; and then 

George S. Counts, National Advisory Council, also professor of 
education, Teachers College, Columbia University ; ■ 

John Dewey, professor emeritus of philosophy, Columbia Uni- 
versity ; 

Stephen Duggan, director, Institute of International Education ; 

Hallie F. Flanagan, professor of English, Vassar College; 

Frank P. Graham, president, University of North Carolina; 

Robert M. Hutchins, president, University of Chicago ; 

Charles H. Judd, dean, School of Education, University of Chicago; 

I. L. Kandel, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia 
University ; 

Robert L. Kelly, secretary, Association of American Colleges ; 

John A. Kingsbury, secretary, Milbank Memorial Fund; 

Susan M. Kingsbury, professor of social economy and social 
research, Bryn Mawr College ; 

Paul Klapper, dean, School of Education, College of the City of 
New York ; 


Charles R. Mann, director, American Council on Education ; 

Edward E. Murrow, assistant director, Institute of International 
Education ; 

William Allan Neilson 

Mr. Hats. May I interrupt you right there? 

That is the one we are talking about. And Mr. Murrow says it 
wasn't held. 

Mr. Sargent. It may or may not be what he is talking about. I 
don't know. This particular thing is an official announcement and a, 
detailed course listing. There may be something else about Murrow. 
I don't know. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I must object to this kind of stuff. I 
mean, even Joe McCarthy had that thing repudiated, and I don't 
see why we should let someone come in here and rehash that kind! 
of stuff. « 

I mean, this is exactly the kind of thing that Joe accused Murrow^ 
of, and it has very definitely been established that the thing was never 
held. Now, if it were held, that is material, and if those men went 
there and became indoctrinated, I would like you to know that I 
would be one of the first- to want to bring them m and cross-examine 
them, but to let an obscure person who has no standing in the educa- 
tional field come in here and malign people like this — I have to object 
to this. 

Mr. Sargent. It was not established that this was not held, and 
I think it will be completely established that it was. And I do not 
know whether this is the document about Murrow 

Mr. .Hays. You are under oath, but you keep saying you think it 
was held, and it hasn't been clearly established. 

Now, do you know whether it was or whether it was not ? 

Mr. Sargent. I was told positively by Mr. Hunter, a Hearst cor- 
respondent in Washington, D. C, that this meeting was held, and 
the photostat I have in my hand was given to me by him. 

Mr. Hays. Well, now, then, in other words, he knows more about 
it than you ? 

. Mr. Sargent. He is in the newspaper business, and he has contacts, 
and he gave me this particular thing. I have also discussed this else- 
where. I have never heard it suggested by anybody that this waa 
not held. 

Mr. Hays. You apparently don't read the papers much or look at 
television, because it is pretty generally understood. It has been more 
than suggested. It has been definitely said. 

Mr. Sargent. Murrow has done a lot of things. I am not talking 
about Murrow here. He is one of the names on the list, and my reason 
for bringing it up has nothing whatever to do with Mr. Murrow. It. 
has to do with the educational picture your committee is considering. 

Mr. Hays. Then why are you reading all these names ? 

Mr. Sargent. To show that a very large group connected with 
American educational affairs at the time participated in the course 
of study offered by this document here, enumerating what kind of a 
course of study it was, and the arrangement. 

Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Chairman, he is again saying they partici- 
pated. They say they didn't. Can we again get an agreement, to 
subpena Mr. Murrow and ask him about it ? 

49720 — 54— pt. 1 IS 


The Chairman. Well, we would be glad to subpena someone, I 
think we ought to have a judgment on which ones of the names 

Mr. Hays. I nominate Mr. Murrow, because I think if it is a lie he 
is probably the fellow that can nail it to the cross about as quickly as 
anyone that has been mentioned. 

The Chairman. But it would seem to me this would have some 
bearing, regardless' of whether the summer school was actually held; 
that the announcement, the program, 'the course of study, that was 
agreed upon in anticipation of the school being held, has an important 
relationship regardless of whether the actual course of study was held. 
Whether it was held or was not, I have no information. 

Mr. Hats. I am inclined to agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that it 
would have a great deal of importance, even the fact that such a 
course was considered and ytie ad was published. But this witness 
keeps inferring, and bringing in names, and saying, "I know that it 
was held," or "I have every reason to believe it was held." And the 
most prominent name perhaps that he has mentioned has been Edward 
R. Murrow. And I don't think I am being unreasonable if I ask that 
the committee agree at this moment to subpena Mr. Murrow and 
merely ask him, "Was or was not this held" and then if you have any 
other questions you want to ask him, that is good enough. That is all 
I want to do. 

Mr. Sargent. There is some other information, Mr. Hays. 

This pamphlet states on its face that sessions of this type were held 
in Moscow in 1933 and 1934, and it describes both of those sessions and 
indicates that the present meeting I mention here had its origin put of 
those meetings. 

So there is a direct statement here that two other sessions have been 
held previously, 

Mr. Hats. I don't know what you are reading from. 

Mr. Sargent. Well, I will come to that. I am trying to read this 
chronologically, in order to have no question about my making selec- 
tions or editing. I am beginning at the start, and I am going 
through it. 

Mr. Wormser. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? I would 
be glad to have the staff ascertain whether it was held or not. If it 
was not, of course, we would be perfectly delighted to concede it, 
Mr. Hays. 

Mr. Hays. I would like to have somebody under oath testify whether 
it was held or not. 

Mr. Wormser. Is that necessary ? 

Mr. Hays. I think it is. 

The Chairman. At the same time, I think it would be well for the 
staff to ascertain the periods at which the schools were held. 

The committee will stand in recess. 

(Short recess.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state right now that I 
have just been in touch with New York and have hurriedly checked 
the Ed Murrow statement, and he states positively and definitely — he 
did on television — that this thing was never held; that the Soviet 
Government canceled it ; that he personally did not go to Europe that 
summer, or to Russia ; that several members of this group didn't go 


to Europe. Some of them did go on a tour of Western Europe, but 
none of them attended any such course. 

Now, as I say, that was a hurried checking, and I would like to be 
able to call somebody in who can do more than give hearsay. You 
cannot admit hearsay evidence in a court, and that is all that this is. 

The Chairman. It has been agreed upon that some person connected 
with the organization will be called, that can give definite testimony. 
But if you will bear with the Chair a moment, what seems to be very 
important to my mind is the reference to the session having been held 
in 1933 and 1934, which has the same implication as the one that was 
proposed for 1935. And I, myself, am prepared to believe that there 
is a question about whether that was actually held. But I think there 
is significance so far as this hearing is concerned to the fact that it was 
announced, that the course of study was made up, and certain educa- 
tors and other interested persons here participated in the preliminary 
activities to the holding of the summer school. Whether it was actu- 
ally held, I agree is pertinent, but I think we can definitely establish 
that fact, and some appropriate official will be summoned to give that 

Mr. Hats. The whole point of my objection is that again we have 
evidence of this business of name dropping which, if left unchallenged, 
would give the general impression to the public at large that Ed Mur- 
row and all these other names mentioned were a bunch of Communist 
sympathizers who were trying to actively promote communism in the 
United States. 

Now, maybe some of the names mentioned are. I don't know. But I 
did want the record to show that this is the same old tripe that we had 
a big hassle over on television a few weeks ago, and I thought then it 
was pretty definitely disposed of. 

If we have anything here this gentleman can present that has some 
bearing on the matter, that is one thing, but to continue this character 
assassination and so on and so forth by inference and by saying, "Well, 
somebody told me so," — that is something else again. 

I think we will have to give these people, if there is any awareness 
about this a chance to come in. 

The Chairman. Everybody who wants to come in will be given an 
opportunity at the right time. But, again, it is my own feeling that 
regardless of whether the summer school of 1935 was held, the pro- 
gram from which Mr. Sargent is reading has an important bearing on 
the subject. But I agree with you with reference to what you have 

Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Sargent, right there, would you mind if I took 
a look at that list ? Not because I doubt what you are reading, but I 
cannot keep all those names in my mind, and I would like to look at it 
to see if there are any other names I recognize besides Ed. Murrow's. 

I do not know any of them personally, not one of them. 

Mr. Sargent. Certainly. 

Mr. Hats. Here is an example of what we are dealing with. It says : 

The summer session originated as a result of an experiment conducted during 
the summer of 1933 by a group of American educators. The American summer 
school in Russia was organized to offer due courses dealing with "experimental 
educational programs of the Soviet Union" and "institutional changes in the 
Soviet Union." 


Now, I can understand why the Russian Government canceled this- 
thing. Of course, they didn't want anybody to find out what was going: 
on. That would be one viewpoint of it, wouldn't it? They didn't 
want any one from America going back there after finding out what 
they were doing? And I am not surprised that they did cancel it. 

The Chairman. I was going to ask Mr. Sargent if he would leave 
that with the committee, again not to be printed but as part of the 
record ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, I will. There is a copy which was intended for 
your use. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Sargent. Two things are apparent on the face of this document. 
One is that the group of persons I named here did apparently allow 
their names to be used in the publication of a pamphlet containing an 
offering of the program set forth in the document. 

Secondly, the March 1935 issue contains the same panel of names; 
here, a picture of Red Square in Moscow, and some detail bringing 
the meeting to the attention of people in the educational profession. 
Those things we know. 

The exact fact, whether it was held later or canceled, is not within 
my personal knowledge, and I, therefore, offer no testimony. 

Mr. Hays. Well, Mr. Sargent, would you say anyone who had ever 
been behind the Iron Curtain was automatically suspect? 

Mr. Sargent. I didn't say that. What has that to do with this? 
Am I calling these people Reds ? I didn't say that, either. 

Mr. Hays. Not in so many words, but you are certainly trying to 
infer that they are. 

Mr. Sargent. I am saying that was the educational thinking at 
the time, sir, and that is important background material in review- 
ing what this committee is supposed to determine, that the thinking 
has gone to a point where it was seriously considered to be a worth- 
while project to do the things which I am referring to here, reading 
out of this pamphlet. That is an entirely different thing. 

Mr. Hays. Did you read the part of the pamphlet I read ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, and I also read something at the end that you did 
not read. 

Mr. Hays. You have had, I don't know how long, to look at this 
pamphlet. I had perhaps 2 minutes. But it seemed to me I picked up 
a pretty significant statement there in the 2 minutes. 

Mr. Sargent. There are some other very significant statements. 

Mr. Hays. I would like to have time to study the whole thing. 
Maybe I will agree with you. 

Mr. Sargent. I was reading the names here. The remaining list 
of names is William Allan Neilson, president, Smith College. 

Howard W. Odum, professor of sociology and director, school of 
public welfare, University of North Carolina. 

William F. Russell, dean, .Teachers College, Columbia University. 

H. W. Tyler, general secretary, American Association of University 

Ernest H. Wilkins, president, Oberlin College. 

John W. Withers, dean, School of Education. New York University. 

Thomas Woody, professor of history of education, University of 


Harry W. Zorbaugh, director, clinic for the social adjustment of 
igifted children, New York University. 
The next page says : 

The tremendous progress of the Soviet Union in the cultural field creates for 
Americans an unequal observation ground for education, sociology, and the 
social sciences. The Soviet Union presents a unique opportunity for the study 
•of the processes of cultural change. The first and second 5-year plans, by creating 
the foundations of a planned economy, have brought about a complete recon- 
struction in the social attitudes and behavior of the Russian people. 

It says : 

The Soviet Union possesses the most progressive system of public education, 
extensively making use of the best achievements of international pedagogy. 

The Chairman. This is all in the announcement ? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. All in the announcement. I am getting repre- 
sentative samples out of the document, and I am giving you the docu- 

Under "Purpose," on page 4, it says that this summer session is open 
to all academically qualified foreigners who are interested in the cul- 
tural and educational aspects of life in the Soviet Union; that the 
•director of the Moscow University summer session is a Soviet educator. 

The summer session is officially an organizational part of the Moscow State 

In order to insure close cooperation with American educational institutions, 
and with students and educatorst in the United States, an advisory relationship 
was established in 1933 with the Institute of International Education. 

I might comment again here, as I showed before : As to the Rocke- 
feller Foundation, Rockefeller in some form was a contributor to that 
international educational institute. The Teachers College pamphlet, 
Introducing Teachers College, so states. 

Mr. Hays. Is that Rockefeller, junior, or the foundation? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't know. I read you the excerpt before. It 
read, the Rockefellers in some form contributed, at least, to that inter- 
national educational institute. The writings of George Counts show 
that he was a director of the Institute of International Education. 
That appears in a number of his writings, including one entitled 
"Driving a Ford Across Soviet Russia," or some similar title, published 
about 1929. 

Now, going on with this document here : 

At the same time, a national advisory council of prominent American edu- 
cators was formed by Prof. Stephen Duggan to assist the Institute of Inter- 
national Education in its advisory capacity. To facilitate still closer rap- 
proachement, each year several American educators are invited to Moscow as 
resident advisers to the summer session. Dr. George S. Counts and Dr. Heber 
Harper, professors of education, Teachers College, Columbia University, will 
act as advisers during the summer session of 1935. 

The Moscow University summer session is sponsored in the Soviet Union by 
the Peoples' Commissariat of Education of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet 
Republic ; by VOKS, the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign 
Countries ; and by Intourist, the state travel company of the U. S. S. R. Intourist, 
through its educational department will supply information to persons interested. 

The cover I have here shows that this is a document of, it says, 
World Tourists, Inc. The Intourist label, I think, appears here later. 
No, I guess I am mistaken on that point. 


In the statement under "Origin," on page 5, it says : 

The summer session originated as the result of an experiment conducted 
during the summer of 1933 by a group of American educators. The American 
summer school in Russia was organized in 1933 to offer two courses. 

Mr. Hays. Are you going to read that whole document? 

Mr. Sargent. No, just excerpts. 

Mr. Hays. Why don't we just, by unanimous consent, put the 
whole thing in the record, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Sargent. Well, I would like to excerpt briefly here. 

Mr. Hays. You seem to like to read. But I would rather read it 
directly, if it is all right. It would save a litle time; 

Mr. Sargent. I want to review the course of study here, the dif- 
ferent courses studied. There is one in art and literature, 32 hours ; 
2 semester units. 

Mr. Hays. Now, wait a minute. Just a minute. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to inserting it; instead of 
filing it as a document, having it printed in the record at the appro- 
priate point in connection with your testimony ? 

Mr. Sargent. You. mean printing it in full ? 

The Chairman. Printing it in full. 

Mr. Sargent. Well, perhaps not. 

I would just like to say a few words about the nature of the courses. 

Mr. Hays. You can say whatever you like. The only thing I am 
interested in: If you are going to read the whole thing, lefts just 
put it. in and we can have your comment. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be printed as part of 
the record, Mr. Reporter. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

For Travel Information Apply to 

World Tourists, Inc. 
175 Fifth Avenue, New York City 

(Printed in U. S. A.) 



(Anglo-American Section) 
American Advisory Organisation 


Advisors : George S. Counts and Heber Harper. 


W. W. Charters, director, Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State Uni- 

Harry Woodburn Chase, chancellor of New York University. 

George S. Counts, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- 

John Dewey, professor emeritus of philosophy, Columbia University. 

Stephen Duggan, director, Institute of International Education. 


Hallie F. Flanagan, professor of English, Vassar College. 

Frank P. Graham, president, University of North Carolina. 

Robert M. Hutchins, president, University of Chicago. 

Charles H. Judd, dean, School of Education, University of Chicago. 

I. L. Kandel, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Robert L. Kelly, secretary, Association of American Colleges. 

John A. Kingsbury, secretary, Milbank Memorial Fund. 

Susan M. Kingbury, professor of social economy and social research, Bryn 
Mawr College. ^ 

Paul Klapper, dean, School of Education, College of the City of New York. 

Charles R. Mann, director, American Council on Education. 

Edward R. Murrow, assistant director, Institute of International Education. 

William Allan Neilson, president, Smith College. 

Howard W. Odum, professor of sociology and director, School of Public Wel- 
fare, University of North Carolina. 

William F. Russell, dean, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

H. W. Tyler, general secretary, American Association of University Professors. 

Ernest H. Wilkins, president, Oberlin College. 

John W. Withers, dean, School of Education, New York University. 

Thomas Woody, professor of history of education, University of Pennsylvania. 

Harvey W. Zorbaugh, director, Clinic for the Social Adjustment of Gifted 
Children, New York University. 

The tremendous progress of the Soviet Union in the cultural field 
creates for Americans an unequalled observation ground for education, 
psychology, and the social sciences. The Soviet Union presents a unique 
opportunity for the study of the processes of cultural change. The first 
and second Five Year Plans, by creating the foundations of a planned 
national economy, have brought about a complete reconstruction in the 
social attitudes and behavior of the Russion people. 

Froniifi backward and illiterate country, the U. 8. S. R. has been trans- 
formed into a modern industrial nation. Illiteracy has been almost 
abolished. The Soviet Union possesses the most progressive system of 
public education, extensively making use of the best achievements of 
international pedagogy. Soviet policy in social welfare, the care of 
mothers and children, the re-education and re-direction of lawless ele- 
ments, and in other fields, presents a provocative challenge to students 
on all levels. 


Moscow University summer session conducts an Anglo-American section, open 
to all academically qualified foreigners who are interested in the cultural and 
educational aspects of life in the Soviet Union. Instruction is in the English 
language, by an all-Soviet faculty of professors and specialists. The State Uni- 
versity of Moscow certifies academic credit to those foreign students meeting 
the requirements of the university and completing a course of study in its Anglo- 
American section. The director of the Moscow University summer session is a 
Soviet educator. The summer session is officially an organizational part of the 
Moscow State University. 

In order to insure close cooperation with American educational institutions, 
and with students and educators in the United States, an advisory relationship 
was established in 1933 with the Institute of International Education. At the 
same time, a National Advisory Council of prominent American educators was 
formed by Prof. Stephen Duggan to assist the Institute of International Educa- 
tion in its advisory capacity. To facilitate still closer rapprochment, each year 
several American educators are invited to Moscow as resident advisers to the 
summer session. Dr. George S. Counts and Dr. Heber Harper, professors of edu- 
cation, Teachers' College, Columbia University, will act as advisers during the 
summer session of 1935. 

The Moscow University summer session is sponsored in the Soviet Union by 
the Peoples' Commissariat of Education of the Russian Socialist Federated 
Soviet Republic; by VOKS, the AU-Union Society for Cultural Relations with 
Foreign Countries ; and by Intoueist, the State Travel Company of the U. S. R. R. 
Intourist, through its Educational Department, will supply information to per- 
sons interested. 

Moscow University will offer, in its Anglo-American section, during the summer 
of 1935, a variety of courses to serve as a means of furthering cultural contacts 
between American and Russian teachers and students. The summer session 


functions with the purpose of providing foreign visitors to the Soviet Union 
with the academic facilities and programs necessary for serious study and re- 
search. However, the purpose of the summer session is primarily that of assist- 
ing foreigners in a survey and understanding of the various phases of contempo- 
rary life in the Soviet Union. 


The summer session originated as the result of an experiment conducted dur- 
ing the summer of 1933 by a group of American educators. The "American 
Summer School in Russia" was organized in 1933 to offer two courses dealing 
•with "Experimental Educational Programs of the Soviet Union" and "Insti- 
tutional Changes in the Soviet Union." These two courses were conducted in 
Moscow in an experimental fashion with a group of twenty-five teachers and 
students of education. 

At the second summer session in 1934, thirteen courses were offered in five 
major fields of art and literature, sociology, psychology, education and research. 
The staff was composed of twenty-two professors and academic assistants. Two 
hundred and twelve students attended the 1934 session. Among them were 
undergraduates, teachers, principals, professors, psychologists, social workers, 
"physicians, nurses and artists. 

Basing their judgment upon the undeniable success of these ventures, the 
Soviet educational authorities organized at the University of Moscow, an Anglo- 
American section offering full and regular summer instruction in English. The 
students and professors of the 1933 and 1934 sessions approved the academic ad- 
vantages of the plan, which enabled the student to travel during his vacation 
period and at the same time to further his own professional experience. It is a 
plan that has the full support of the foremost educators and scientists of the 
Soviet Union. 

The directors of the summer school discovered that while American educators 
displayed great interest in Soviet education, it was evident that outside of the 
Soviet Union there existed no profound knowledge of actual conditions in the 
Soviet school world. These considerations, coupled with the ever present Rus- 
sian eagerness for close cultural contact with Americans, are the primary reasons 
for the continuation of the plan. 

The Plan of the Summer Session 

Moscow University summer session offers the student an opportunity to com- 
bine summer vacation with study and European travel at very economical rates. 
Special rates for maintenance in the Soviet Union are available only to students, 
teachers or social workers who attend the summer session. 

Academic Program 

The Anglo-American section of the Moscow University summer session offers 
a wide choice of subjects and courses. The courses offered during the 1935 ses- 
sion, which begins on July 19th in Moscow, are listed below under special group 


Arts in the U. 8. 8. R. — SO hours, 2 semester units 

(Requires minimum of thirty additional hours observation and field work. 
Open to all students.) 

A discussion of contemporary painting, sculpture, architecture, music, theater, 
and the dance in the Soviet Union. The course will offer the student a concept 
of the relation of art to the building of the new Soviet society. Topics to be 
discussed will include the features of socialist realism in art ; the social status 
of artists ; the economic organization enabling creative work ; and the role of 
the arts in the program of popular education. 

Observation and field work will be scheduled in gallaries, studios, theatres for 
children and adults, research institutes, club houses for artists and other insti- 
tutions for the development of art activities. 

Literature of Russia and the Soviet Union — SO hours, 2 semester units 

(Requires a minimum of thirty adidtional hours of library work. Open to all 
students. ) 

The course will present a prief survey of pre-revolutionary Russia literature 
and the effects of the old writers upon the new. There will be included a descrip- 
tion of the historical stages of Soviet literature; the present school of socialist 


realism; the work and influence of such writers as Gorski and others; the 
themes of contemporary Soviet literature ; and the social role of the Soivet writer 
in the program for the building of socialism. 


Principles of the Collective and Socialist Society— SO hours, 2 semester units 

(The course, or is equivalent, prerequesite for all students. Students may re- 
quest exemption when registering.) 

An elementary course, presenting and describing the basic ideas and institu- 
tions of Soviet society. Beginning with a brief historical account, the course will 
present in simple terms the theory and practice of socialist construction. Among 
the topics included in the course are : the theories underlying the Soviet State ; 
the organization of the government and the Soviet economy; the program of 
educational and cultural advance; the relation of the individual to the family 
and to other social groups ; the question of the village and the collectivization 
of agriculture ; and the solution of the problems of national minorities. The 
course is intended as a general survey of Soviet life. 

Justice and the Correctional Policy of the S. U. — 30 hours, 2 semester units 
(Requires 15 additional hours of observation. Open to all students.) 
The course will describe the Soviet system of jurisprudence and the adminis- 
tration of justice. There will be a review of the major theories of criminology 
as well as the Marxian point of view towards the problem of crime. It will then 
specifically deal with crime and its eradication in the Soviet Union. Programs 
for the education of delinquents (children and adolescents) and for the reclama- 
tion of criminals will be presented. In connection with this course, there will be 
visits of observation to the various institutions concerned with this problem. 

Organization of Public Health and Socialized Medicine — SO hours, 2 semester units 
(Requires a minimum of fifteen additional hours of observation and field work. 
Open to all students. Recommended to social workers, physicians and health 
education specialists.) 

The course presents a study of the organization of health and medical services 
in the U. S. S. R. There will be a description of the organization and programs 
of hospitals, clinics, rest homes, sanataria and dispensaries in their relationships 
to factories and farms ; medical research and the work of experimental institutes ; 
training of medical workers; care of women and children in factories, schools 
and on farms; social psychiatry and mental hygiene; physical education and 
programs for disease prevention ; and the organization of professional medicine 
as a state function. 

Education and Science 

Survey of Education in the U. S. S. R. — 80 hours, 4 semester units 

(Requires a minimum of thirty additional hours of library, observation and 
field work. Open to teachers and students of education. ) 

This course will describe the philosophy, curricula, and methods of the follow- 
ing divisions of Soviet education : 

A. — The Unified Polytechnical School and Its Preschool Foundations : The 
polytechnical school includes elementary and secondary education. The course 
will begin with an examination of Soviet pre-school institutions. 

B — Vocational and Higher Education : The course will present the Soviet pro- 
gram for the training of workers of all grades and in all fields ; it will include 
a description of such institutions as factory and mill schools, workers' schools 
(rabfacs), technicums, higher technical schools, pedagogical institutes, medical 
schools, institutes of Soviet law, art universities, Communist universities and 
universities proper. Subjects of special interest will be the composition of the 
student body, the system of maintenance stipends for students, the problems of 
control and administration, and the relation of vocational and professional 
education to the planned economy. 

C — Extra School and Adult Education Agencies : The course will deal with those 
educational agencies which reach children as well as adults — libraries, reading 
rooms, evening and correspondence courses, the press, book stores, clubs, 
museums, galleries, travel and excursions, radio, post and telegraph, cinema and 
theatre, the activities of popular societies, etc. 


Science and Technic in the U. 8. 8. R. — 60 hours, 4 semester units 
( Requires 15 additional hours of library work. Open to all students.) 
The course will study the relation of social planning to scientific research in 
the Soviet Union. The course will include a description of the early types of 
planning under military Communism; the plan formulated by Lenin for the 
electrification of the country ; the development of the State Planning Commis- 
sion from its founding in 1921; the structure and function of the system of 
planning organizations, and the actual methods utilized in the preparation and 
execution of the first and second five-year plans. The student will be given an 
outline of the Marxian view of the role of science in socialistic society, and an 
account of the coordinated development of the Soviet network of scientific 
research institutes. Soviet development in the fields of social and physical 
sciences will be studied. The course will conclude with a summary of the present 
status of planning and science in the Soviet Union. 

Survey of Psychological Research — 80 hours, 2 semester units 

(Requires minimum of fifteen additional hours of library, laboratory or obser- 
vation work. Registration open only to advanced students of psychology.) 

This course presents an advanced discussion of the technical and specialized 
phases of experimental psychology in the Soviet Union. Such topics as the fol- 
lowing will be considered : the status of psychology in Russia prior to the Revolu- 
tion of 1917; the theories of reflexology and conditioning (Pavlov and Bech- 
terov) ; trends in contemporary psychological research in the U. S. S. R. ; Soviet 
advance in applied psychology and psychotechnics ; psychology and industrial 
rationalization ; and the relation of Marxism-Leninism to psychology. 


History of the Soviet Union — 60 hours, 4 semester units 

(Requires a minimum of thirty additional hours of library work. Open to all 
students. ) 

This course opens with a study of prerevolutionary Russian history. The 
course will continue with a study of the forces underlying the Czarist policy at 
home and abroad ; the social and economic life of the people under the old regime ; 
the early mass uprisings, strikes and revolutions ; the development of capitalism 
and industry ; the distribution of land and property ; the revolutionary movement 
prior to 1905 : the 1905 revolution ; the World War and the collapse of the old 
order ; the February and October revolutions ; the period of military Communism, 
civil war and NEP ; the reconstruction era ; the first and second five-year plans. 

Economic Policy and Geography of the V. S. 8. R. — 60 hours, 4 semester units 

(Requires thirty additional hours of library, observation and field work. Open 
to all students. ) 

The course will discuss the general economic development of the U. S. S. R. by 
presenting an historical account of the building of socialism in relation to the 
geographic factors. Topics included in the course are : The period of a military 
Communism in the first years of the revolution ; the new economic policy inaugu- 
rated in 1921, and the program of planned construction launched by the first 
five-year plan in 1928. The course will also touch upon the problems of foreign 
and domestic trade, wages, housing, social benefits, taxation, Soviet monetary 
system, etc. 

Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism — 80 hours, 2 semester units 

(Requires a minimum of fifteen hours library work. Open only to advanced 
students having necessary background in history of philosophy.) 

This course will present an introduction to the philosophy of dialectical ma- 
terialism. The works of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin will be utilized for the presenta- 
tion of the basic positions, postulates and doctrines of dialectical materialism. 
The course will also point out the important applications of the philosophy of 
dialectical materialism to scientific research both in social and natural sciences. 


Advanced Russian for Foreigners — 30 hours, 2 semester units 

(Open to students with elementary knowledge of Russian.) 

The course will build a more thorough reading knowledge and a better collo- 
quial use of Russian. The emphasis will be entirely upon the practice of Russian 
for conversational and research purposes. Oral and written composition will be 


required. At least one work of contemporary Russian literature will be read and 
discussed in class. 


July 16-18 incl. : Preliminary sessions in Leningrad. 

July 19: Official opening session in Moscow. 

Aug. 13 : Examinations and final session in Moscow. 

Aug. 14-25 incl. : Travel field work period. 

Note. — Students may arrive in Leningrad between July 16th and 18th. Those 
students arriving in Leningrad after July 16, but not later than July 18th, will 
be granted the privilege of remaining in Kiev for an additional number of days, 
bringing the total to forty days from date of arrival. Students arriving in 
Leningrad or Moscow earlier than July 16th will be charged the regular Intourist 
rate of $5 per day in supplement to the basic summer session rate. 

The basic rate for travel and maintenance in the Soviet Union during the 
period of the summer session is $176.00. No refunds will be granted students 
leaving the Soviet Union before the end of the summer session, unless with- 
drawal is caused by illness or force majeure. 

These regulations are stated in order to permit the necessary adjustment 
caused by varying dates of arrival in the Soviet Union. 

Daily Class Schedule 

Bour Course 

9-10 Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism. 

Survey of Psychological Research. 

Principles of the Collective and Socialist Society. 
10-12 Science and Technic in the U. S. S. R. 

Survey of Education in the U. S. S. R. 

History of the Soviet Union. 

Economic Policy and Geography of the U. S. S. R. 
12-1 Arts in the U. S. S. R. 

Organization of Public Health and Socialized Medicine. 

Justice and the Correctional Policy of the Soviet Union. 
2-3 Literatures of Russia and the Soviet Union. 

Advanced Russian for Foreigners. 

Academic Regulations 

1. Enrollments are accepted for one or more courses, but the total number of 
class room hours may not exceed ninety (six semester units). 

2. The course "Principles of the Collective and Socialist Society" is prerequisite 
for admission to all other courses; however, the student may enroll simultane- 
ously in this and other courses. Students may be exempted from this requirement 
by presenting evidence of having completed : 

a — An equivalent course during the Moscow University summer sessions 
of 1933 or 1934. 
b — An equivalent course in an American school or university. 
c — The reading of at least three approved references on the subject. 

3. Students enrolling in "Survey of Psychological Research" must list at least 
three previous courses in psychology when filling out the application form. 

4. Changes in program may not be made later than one week after the opening 
of the summer session in Moscow. 

5. Moscow University reserves the right to dismiss students for unsatisfactory 
work or conduct. 

6. Students may not attend courses other than those in which they are enrolled ; 
auditors will not be permitted. 

7. Students may not enroll in "Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism" without 
necessary recommendations or prerequisite courses. 

8. AM registrations are subject to the approval of the director of Moscow Uni- 
versity summer session or the American representative of Moscow University. 

9. Academic credit will not be granted to students absent during more than 
three class sessions. 

Tkavel Plan 

The unique feature of the summer school plan, offered by the Anglo-American 
section of Moscow University, is the combination of class room and laboratory 
study with travel in the Soviet Union. The educational directors of the uni- 
versity are of the opinion that an adequate understanding of the policies and 



programs of Soviet institutions is to be found not only through academic investi- 
gation but also through direct observation of institutions at work. To this end, 
and in order to permit the visitor to become acquainted with the many aspects 
of social conditions not only in one locale but throughout the country, each 
course listed is offered in conjunction with field work tours. These will include 
the major cities of the Soviet Union, and permit close observation of institutional 

Academic work at the University of Moscow includes approximately four 
weeks of resident study and two weeks of supervised travel. The itineraries for 
the travel period have been set up to meet professional and academic interest" 
All students enrolled are offered the choice of the following itineraries. 

Itinerary No. 1 

Aug. 14 — Leave Moscow — late after- 

15 — En route 

16 — Arrive Sevastopol — morning 

17 — To Yalta 

18— Yalta 

19— Yalta 

20— Yalta 

21 — Yalta ; leave Yalta — morning 

22 — Arrive Odessa— morning ; 
leave evening 

23 — Arrive Kiev 

24— Kiev 

25 — Leave Kiev — noon, for Shepe- 

Itinerary No. g 

Aug. 14— Leave Moscow — noon 

15 — Arrive Rostov — evening 
16— Rostov 
17 — Rostov 

18 — Leave Rostov — afternoon 
19 — Arrive Sochi — morning 
20— Sochi 

21 — Leave Sochi — evening 
22-23— En route 
24 — Arrive Odessa 
25 — Leave Odessa — evening, for 

Itinerary No. S 

Aug. 14— Leave Moscow — late after- 

15 — Arrive Kharkov — noon 

16 — Kharkov 

17 — Leave Kharkov — noon; ar- 
rive Dnieproges — evening 

18 — Dnieproges — Leave evening 

19 — Arrive Sevastopol — morn- 
ing ; to Yalta 

20— Yalta 

21 — Leave Yalta — morning 

22 — Arrive Odessa — morning ; 
leave evening 

23 — Arrive Kiev 

24— Kiev 

25 — Leave Kiev — noon, for Shep- 

Itinerary No. 4 

Aug. 14 — Leave Moscow — evening 

15— Old Rostov 

16 — Yaroslavl 

17— Yaroslavl — leave for Mos- 

18 — Moscow 

19 — Leave Moscow — evening 

20 — Arrive Leningrad — morning ; 
leave afternoon 

21— Pskov 

22 — From Pskov to Staraya 
Russia and by boat to Old 

23 — Old Novgorod — Leave for 

24 — Arrive Leningrad— morning 

25 — Leave Leningrad, for Belo 
Ostrov (or by steamer) 

Itinerary No. 5 

(15 Day Itinerary — Supplementary 
Cost $20.00) 

Aug. 14 — Leave Moscow — evening 

15 — Arrive Gorki — morning 

16 — Leave Gorki — noon 

17— On the Volga 

18— On the Volga 

19— On the Volga 

20 — Arrive Stalingrad — morn- 
ing ; leave evening 

21 — Arrive Rostov — evening 

22— Rostov 

23— Rostov 

24 — Rostov 

25 — Leave Rostov — morning ; ar- 
rive Kharkov — evening 

26— Kharkov 

27 — Kharkov — leave evening 

28— Kiev 

29 — Leave Kiev, for Shepetovka 

Itinerary No. 6 

(15 Day Itinerary — Supplementary 
Cost $20.00) 

Aug. 14 — Leave Moscow — late after- 
15 — Arrive Kharkov — noon 


Itinerary No. 6 — Continued Itinerary No. 6 — .Continued 

(15 Day Itineary — Supplementary (15 Day Itinerary — Supplementary 

Cost $20.00)— Continued Cost $20.00)— Continued 

Aug. 16 — Leave Kharkov — evening Aug. 23 — En route 

17^-En route 24 — En route 

18 — Arrive Kislovodsk 25 — Arrive Yalta — morning 

19 — Kislovodsk to OrdzhoniMdze 26 — Yalta 

20 — Georgian Highway 2T — Leave Yalta— morning 

21 — Tiflis — leave for Batum 28 — Arrive Odessa — morning ; 
22 — Batum — leave evening for leave afternoon 

Yalta 29— Kiev 

Students are urged to select their itinerary, and indicate their choice upon 
the attached registration form, before sailing from New York. Although it is 
permissible to choose the itinerary while in residence in Moscow, in order to 
avoid congestion in office routine it is advisable that the choice of itinerary be 
indicated as soon as possible. 

Accommodations and Social Life 

Accommodations offered to visitors attending the summer session of the Mos- 
cow University are of the dormitory type. These quarters are designed for stu- 
dents who wish to approximate in the living conditions the life of the typical 
Soviet students. 

Persons desiring individual rooms, or rooms for two, may be accommodated 
in the dormitories ; but since the number of such rooms is limited, requests for 
other than regular dormitary quarters will be considered in order of their receipt. 
Supplementary rates for individual or double rooms will be supplied upon request. 

Accommodations include three full meals daily and lodging. In addition, the 
summer session provides guide and interpreter service, rail and motor travel, 
through Intourist, the Soviet State of Travel Company. 

The -spirit of the summer session is that of the true Soviet school. In its unique 
student organization and control of all physical and academic problems, the vis- 
itor to the Moscow University begins to understand, through a feeling of partici- 
pation, the functioning of a Soviet university. 

Athletic, cultural and social activities after school hours are provided for the 
visitor through the cooperation of Soviet student groups. Sightseeing, the the- 
atre, the cinema, boating and bathing, the publishing of a "wall newspaper," are 
but a few of the extra curricular activities available. Soviet life is rich in cul- 
tural opportunities for all. The tourist is usually unable to fully avail himself of 
these opportunities. But the student of the summer session will have ample op- 
portunity to participate in any activity he chooses. 

Students accepting dormitory accommodations must be fully aware that these 
accommodations are not luxurious. They are plain but clean. They do not 
provide the privacy or comforts offered by hotels. Dormitory accommodations 
are available mainly because many students cannot afford the higher cost of hotel 
residence. There are separate dormitories for men and women, with a limited 
number of rooms for married couples. 

Academic Credit 

The Moscow University summer session certifies foreign students for full 
academic credit at the University of Moscow.. The student may offer the certifi- 
cate of attendance and credit, issued by the University of Moscow, to the faculty 
of the American college or university at which he is regularly enrolled, for evalu- 
ation and recognition in accordance with the policies and procedures of the insti- 
tution. In order to assist in the evaluation of credit, the director of the Moscow 
University summer session will provide the dean, faculty advisor or other admin- 
istrative official with a full academic description of courses and of the progress in 
work of each student. The minimum university credit possible is two points 
and the maxmum is six points (semester units) . 

New York City school teachers may offer the certificates issued by the Uni- 
versity of Moscow to meet the requirements for annual salary increment (alert- 
ness credit). 


Credit will be granted only to those students in regular attendance, who have 
satisfactorily met all the requirements of Moscow University. Final examina- 
tions will be given in all courses. 

Registration and Fees 

Courses are open to all persons interested in the cultural and social progress 
of the Soviet Union. 

Registrants desiring academic credit must be bona-fide undergraduate or grad- 
uate university students ; teachers on elementary, secondary or university level ; 
or social workers. 

Before registering, students must examine the daily class schedule in order 
not to enroll in courses conflicting with each other. After the student's applica- 
tion has been received and accepted, the Educational Department of Intourist 
will issue to each student a class admission card as well as a student identifica- 
tion card. All student applications must be approved by the office of the Institute 
of International Education. 

Tuition fees are payable at time of registration. All checks for tuition and 
registration fees must be made payable to the order of Intourist, Inc., which is 
empowered to collect fees for the Moscow University. The total registration fee 
is $2.50, regardless of the number of courses in which the student may enroll. 
The tuition fee for each thirty-hour course is $20.00 ; the tuition fee for each 
sixty-hour course is $40.00. 

Tuition fees will be refunded in case of changed plans, at any time prior to 
July 3, 1935. Registration fees will not be refunded. 

Maintenance Cost 

The cost of maintenance for the entire summer session, from July 16 to August 
25th, inclusive is $176.00. 

This amount includes the cost of maintenance in Leningrad or Moscow from 
July 16th to July 18th; maintenance in dormitories from July 19th to August 
13th ; maintenance and third-class travel costs from August 14th to August 25th, 

Students may purchase all travel and maintenance service through local travel 
agents. Intourist, Inc., provides all travel agents with complete information 
concerning maintenance, travel, and other services in the Soviet Union. After 
the student has purchased the necessary service through the travel agent," he will 
be supplied with covering service-documents to be presented upon his arrival in 
the Soviet Union to Intourist. 

At the earliest possible date, each student will receive a dormitory room-assign- 
ment card, a student identification card, and the necessary class admission cards. 


Moscow University (Summer Session) 


Directions : 

1. Please print legibly in ink. Answer all questions. 

2. Consult Daily Class Schedule before listing courses. 

3. If you desire academic credit, consult the dean or advisor of your school. 

4. Checks or money orders must be drawn to order of Intourist, Inc. 

5. Mail application form, together with tuition and registration fees, to 
the Educational Department, Intourist, Inc., 545 Fifth Ave., New York City. 

6. For travel information and purchase of maintenance services in the 
Soviet Union, consult your local travel agent. 



Name Address 

Birth date Occupation Place of work 

Degrees Present academic status School or college 

Do you Have you consulted His 

desire credit? Dean or Advisor ? Name 

Give one University reference (Name) (Address) 

List courses in which you are enrolling : (1) (2) 

(Maximum of three) (3) 

If enrolling in advanced course, list previous courses or work in field 

If applying for exemption from prerequisite course, state reasons 

List Soviet Union Itinerary No Total amount of fees enclosed 

(Date) (Signature) 

The Chairman. Now you may make your comments. 

Mr. Sargent. There are a number of variety courses here, one 
on art and literature including Socialist realism in art, discussing the 
role of the Socialist writer in the program of building for socialism. 
The principles of the collective and Socialist society, a prerequisite for 
all students ; the course of justice and correctional policy, discussing 
the Russian system ; one on organization of public health and social- 
ized medicine, including social psychiatry and mental hygiene ; one on 
survey of education in the U. S. S. R. ; another on science and teeh- 
nio in the U. S. S. R. ; one on a study of psychological research; 
theories of reflexology and conditioning. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, you are not commenting. You are just 

Mr. Sargent. It refers to the works of Pavlov here. 

Mr. Hats. We have that all in the record. It is in by unanimous 

What are your comments ? That is what I want to know. 

Mr. Sargent. My comments are that this document shows a frame- 
work of a complete system of indoctrination of American educators 
which could only be put together on the theory of their receiving such 
indoctrination and coming back here and introducing it into our 
school system. It even includes the reflexology item I just referred 
to, including material on Pavlov, who was the author of the princi- 
ples of brain washing. 

It includes a travel program for these educators to go to the Soviet 
Union and travel around various parts of the country. One of these 
travel schedules included 5 days at Yalta, among other things. 

There are five different itineraries. It says a unique feature was that 
they would live under conditions approximating that of the average 
Soviet student, and the educators attending could even receive aca- 
demic credit, and the New York City teachers would get a salary incre- 
ment in the New York City school system by attending the meeting. 


I cannot conceive how the panel of people named here would allow 
their names to be used in sponsorship of a project of this type unless 
they were profoundly in sympathy with the doing of that kind of 
thing at the period that is mentioned here. This is offered in full for 
the transcript of my testimony. 

Mr. Hats. What the committee is concerned about, Mr. Sargent: 
Could you give us any estimate of how many more pages of your state- 
ment there are to read there ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not going to read the entire binder, if that 
is what you mean. It contains blank paper and various things to 
which I might want to refer. 

The Chairman. The statement of Mr. Hays was that we had 
anticipated that you would have required 2 days. 

Now, the way the situation has developed, I told him we had 
anticipated you would be able to finish tomorrow. 

We are to have two sessions. Of course, that is not binding on 
anybody, but that is our goal insofar as your direct testimony is con- 
cerned. That is the frame of time that we had in mind. 

As you state, I did not have in mind that you were going to read 
all that is in the notes there. 

Mr. Wormser. Do you think you could finish in two sessions 
tomorrow ? 

Mr. Sargent. I will make every effort to. I think probably. 

The Chairman. We want all pertinent information included. At 
the same time, we do want to conserve the time of the committee as 
much as we can. 

Mr. Sargent. Would it be possible, just in case, if I had one session 
on the following day? 

The Chairman. We don't want to commit ourselves definitely at 
this time. 

Mr. Sargent. I will make every effort to do that. 

Mr. Hats. As I understand it, now, you are going to take at least 
two more sessions and probably a third just to get through reading 
your statement? 

Mr. Sargent. Oh, no. I have an outline of various points to cover 
here. I am getting pretty well through this historical material. I am 
getting down to specific topics. 

Mr. Hats. The thing that I am driving at is that it is going to 
take you this long to get through your presentation before we start 
crossing; is that right? 

Mr. Sargent. Presumably. Regardless of the reason one way or 
the other, I have had only a fraction of the time so far, and it has 
put me off my stride here, and I have to get back on. 

Mr. Hats. There we are getting into the realm of something that 
is not within the realm of hearsay. We can measure the pages and 
find out what fraction you have had, and I think you will find out it is 
a big fraction. 

Frankly, I might say that your diatribe has a tendency to afflict me 
with ennui. 

The purpose of this is to try to find out when the committee is going 
to adjourn for the weekend and when we are going to reconvene next 
week, because Sunday is Memorial Day, and Mr. Reece and I at least 
have commitments for Memorial Day. 


Mr. Sargent. I think, having your point in mind here, I can bring 
in an outline tomorrow morning for my guidance which will enable 
me to refer to certain things, leave the document with you relating to 
it, and state its general scope. 

Mr. Hats. We are not going to try to cut you off. 

Mr. Sargent. I understand that. 

Mr. Hays. But we are just trying to find out how long we can run 
this week and when we can come back next week. 

Mr. Sargent. I think I can do quite well on a full run tomorrow. 

The Chairman. The committee, when it recesses at noon Thursday, 
will recess to convene the following Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock 
at a place to be announced. 

You may proceed, Mr. Sargent. We will go along as far as we can 
this afternoon. 

Mr. Sargent. Now, Professor George S. Counts, one of those spon- 
soring this session, became a professor of education at Teachers Col- 
lege, Columbia University, in the year 1927, and an associate director 
of the Teachers College International Institute at the same time. 

In 1929 he edited a translation of a book by a Soviet educator, Albert 
P. Pinkevitch, who was president of the Second State University of 
Moscow. The book states that it was translated under the auspices of 
the International Institute of Columbia. 

In 1931 he published a translation of the New Russian Primer, 
which was the story of the 5-year plan. The same year he wrote 
a book entitled "The Soviet Challenge to America." He was still 
associate director of this International Institute at that particular 

In February of 1933, the Progressive Education Journal, which is 
the official publication of the Progressive Education Society, published 
an article in which Johannson I. Zilberfarb, a member of the State 
Scientific Council and Commissariat of Education of the Russian 
Republic, wrote an article commenting on this pamphlet, Dare the 
School Build a New Social Order ? 

The editors and publishers of the magazine published an excerpt 
from a letter that Zilberfarb had written to Counts showing the close 
sympathy existing between the two men at the time, and here is an 
excerpt from the letter in the magazine. It says : 

I read with a great deal of interest your recent publication, Dare the School 
Build a New Social Order? The remarkable progress you have made in challeng- 
ing capitalism gave me much pleasure and fired me with confidence in a yet 
greater friendship between us. This feeling, however, in no way moderated my 
criticisms of the pamphlet, as you will observe from the enclosed view. May I 
be so bold as to hope that your profound and consistent attack on the social order 
in your country will eventually lead you to a complete emancipation from Ameri- 
can exclusiveness and intellectual messiahship so aptly exposed in your pamphlet, 
thus enabling you to consider all social progress from a universal proletarian 
point of view. 

Now, going back on another phase of the same subject, we find that 
generally in the educational profession, commencing around 1926, 
there was forming a movement which resulted in a report frankly 
recommending the slanting of history textbooks for a propaganda pat- 
tern to further a collective-type of state. 

The document to which I refer is known as Conclusions and Rec- 

49720—54 — pt. 1- 19 


It started as a project in 1926 by a committee of nine,- appointed 
by the American Historical Society. There was a $300,000 grant from 
Carnegie Corp. for that particular work, a 5-year survey. The in- 
formation I have bearing on that is contained in the report itself. I 
don't want to take your time in reading all these names. Would you 
like me to give an excerpt to the reporter containing the list of names 
without reading them here all now ? Counts is one on the committee. 

Mr. Hays. What is the volume ? 

Mr. Sargent. Conclusions and Recommendations, Report of the 
Committee on Social Studies of the American Historical Association. 
They recommend changing the curriculum to promote a collective- 
type of state and playing down of traditional American values in 

The Chairman. What year is that published ? 

Mr. Sargent. The publication of that was in 1934. The study began 
back in 1926 or 1927. It is a $300,000 Carnegie grant. I am reading 
certain excerpts from the report to show the nature of the conclusions. 
I. wanted to save time by not reading all the list of names. 

Mr. Hays. You say it is pertinent material and it is part of the 
record without being printed? 

Mr. Sargent. I thought I could have typed off the list of names and 
give them to the reporter to insert, instead of reading them now. 

Mr. Hays. That is all right with me. 

The Chairman. That will be done. 

(The list of names is as follows :) 

Frank W. Ballou, Superintendent of Schools, Washington, D. C. 

Charles A. Beard, formerly professor of politics, Columbia -University; author 
of many books in the fields of history and politics 

Isaiah Bowman, director, American Geographical Society of New York; presi- 
dent of the International Geographical Union 

Ada Comstock, president of Radcliffe College 

George S. Counts, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University 

Avery O. Craven, professor of history, University of Chicago 

Edmund E. Day, formerly dean of School of Business Administration, University 
of Michigan ; now director of Social Sciences, Rockefeller Foundation 

Guy Stanton Ford, professor of history, dean of Graduate School; University 
of Minnesota 

Carlton J. H. Hayes, professor of history, Columbia University 

Ernest Horn, professor of education, University of Iowa 

Henry Johnson, professor of history, Teachers College, Columbia University 

A. C. Krey, professor of history, University of Minnesota 

Leon C. Marshall, Institute for the Study of Law, John Hopkins University 

Charles D. Merriam, professor of political science, University of Chicago 

Jesse H. Newlin, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University ; 
director of Lincoln Experimental School 

Jesse F. Steiner, professor of sociology, University of Washington 

Mr. Hays. Let me ask you this. I want to look at one of these books 
myself. What was the name of that book you mentioned this morning 
that you said did something about creating an air of revolution around 
1917? Do you recall offhand what book you were talking about? 

Mr. Sargent. I referred to the New York investigation of radical- 
ism movement, the Lusk Report. It is a work of several volumes, I 
think 4 or 5 or even 6 volumes, perhaps. It is a very intensive study. 

Mr. Hays. There is another book you mentioned and I can't recall 
the title. I suppose I can get it out of the transcript of this morning. 

Mr. Sargent. I referred to revolutionary intellectual elites, von 
Mises' book. 

Mr. Hays. No. 


Mr. Sargent. I referred to the Occasional Papers, No. 3, of Flex- 
ner, advocating a change in the educational system, that was 1916, 
General Education Board publication. I don't recall anything else 

Mr. Hats. As a matter of fact, what occasioned the inquiry is that 
someone came to my office who had been in the audience and asked 
me if I had ever seen this volume and they mentioned the name of it. 
I had not, and I cannot even recall the name of it. I thought perhaps 
I was giving enough of a clue. I may be hazy myself. It will show 
up in the transcript and we will get hold of it then. 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. This report discusses, among other 
things, educational philosophy for the United States. It says that 
American society during the past 100 years has been moving from an 
individual and frontier economy to a collective and social economy. 
That whatever may be the character of life in the society now emer- 
ging, it will certainly be different, and whether it will be better or 
worse will depend on large measure on the standards of appraisal 
which are applied. It says that continued emphasis in education on 
traditional ideas and values of academic individualism will intensify 
conflict and maladjustments during the period of transition. It says 
that if education continues to emphasize philosophy of individualism 
in economy, it will increase accompanying social tensions, and so 
forth. That the educators' stand today between two great philoso- 
phies. An individualism in economic theory which has become hos- 
tile in practice to the development of individuality; the other rep- 
resenting and anticipating the future. 

What these gentlemen propose to do is set forth in their chapter 
at the end talking about next steps. It says that it is first to awaken 
and consolidate leadership around the philosophy and purpose of 
education expounded in the report. That the American Historical 
Association in cooperation with the National Council on the Social 
Studies has arranged to take over the magazine, the Outlook, as a 
social science journal for teachers. That writers of textbooks are to 
be expected to revamp and rewrite their old works in accordance with 
this frame of reference. That makers of programs in social sciences 
in cities and towns may be expected to evaluate the findings. That it 
is not too much to expect in the near future a decided shift in emphasis 
from mechanics and methodology to the content and function of 
courses in the social studies. That is the gist of it. 

This report became the basis for a definite slanting in the curriculum 
by selecting certain historical facts and by no longer presenting others, 
and brought us to the condition we find ourselves in at the present time. 

I am at a little disadvantage here. I had some Building of America 
books which contained some very pertinent material. How much 
more time have you to meet this afternoon? 

The Chairman. About 25 minutes. 

Mr. Sargent. That is unfortunate. I thought I would be on all 

The Chairman. However, we can quit any time. 

Mr. Sargent. Logically that particular section belongs at this point. 

I have a few other things I can use. Here another book of 
Professor Counts showing the Russian influence on educational lead- 
ers at the time. It is called Character Education in the Soviet Union. 
It is edited by William Clark Trow, foreword by George S. Counts, 


and is published in 1934. It reviews the Soviet method of dealing 
with the question of youth and reproduces various posters used for 
propaganda purposes in the Soviet Union. Here is the first one here, 
reproduction of an actual Russian poster. The heading, of course, is 
written in the Eussian language. The translation is on the opposite 
page, and deals with the subject of international education. The 
poster says : 

Without educating internationalists, we will not build socialism. Animosity 
between nations is the support of counter-revolutions and of capital. It is there- 
fore profitable and so is maintained. War is needed by capitalists for still 
greater enslavement of oppressed people. International education is the way 
toward socialism and toward the union of the toilers of the whole world. 

Mr. Hays. Is that book sponsored by a foundation ? 

Mr. Sargent. It doesn't show on its face. It is printed by Ann 
Arbor Press. The foreword is by Counts, however. 

Mr. Hats. I know. You may be making a case that Dr. Counts is 
a Socialist or Communist or something. I don't know about that. 
But I want to know where the foundations get this book. 

Mr. Sargent. The foundation tie-in for one is the International 
Institute in which Counts was in a leadership position and the prefer- 
ment given to Columbia University and Teachers College by the 
Rockefeller interests. They have been the main financial stay of that 
institution in spite of all of their policies. 

Mr. Hays. The Rockefeller Foundation has been the mainstay of 
Teachers College ? 

Mr. Sargent. I understand it is one of the principal supporting 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, you are pretty evasive. I can see that you 
have had a good deal of legal training. I ask you a specific question 
and then you say "I understand." That is one of the nice ways to 
libel people, isn't it ? 

Mr. Sargent. That is not lying. 

Mr. Hays. I didn't say lying; I said libel. You can say I under- 
stand so and so is a such and such, and you did not say it ; you just 
heard it around some place. That is not evidence. Is that evidence % 
You ean't use hearsay as evidence in any court. Apparently you can 
bring darn near anything into a congressional hearing. 

Mr. Sargent. If you want to get down to that, I saw the official 
treasurer's report of Columbia University, and ran my finger down 
the various grants, and I found in my own examination of those re- 
ports that very considerable sums of money have been granted to 
Columbia University by that foundation. 

Mr. Hays. That is one thing. 

Mr. Sargent. I saw that. 

Mr. Hays. You say it is the mainstay. Then you change it and say 
very considerable amounts. There is a little difference there, isn't 

there ? 

Mr. Sargent. Your committee report says there has been a great 
deal of preferment by these foundations in favor of certain universi- 
ties. That is stated in your own staff report. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Reece said that last year when he made his speech 
on the floor, too, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. _ He believes 
that and he has a right to. Understand, I am sure he is sincere on 
that. Just because somebody says so, that doesn't make it so. As a 


matter of fact, there is a lot of stuff in the Congressional Eecord that 
might not have too much bearing of fact. The fact that it is in the 
Eecord gives it a certain air. There have been cases where someone 
put a slant in the Eecord and made reprints and said, "In the Con- 
gressional Record it says." 

The Chairman. You keep referring to my speech. Have you gone 
back and read any speeches that our late good friend, Gene Cox, made 
on the advocacy of the passage of his resolution ? 

Mr. Hats. That is before he got religion. 

Mr. Sargent. The Eockef eller Foundation is of 

Mr. Hays. Just a moment. I don't want to interrupt your conti- 
nuity. Let us go back to this book. I have done a little searching 
here, and I still don't know the name. Didn't you mention a book 
by Frederick Lewis Allen ? 

Mr. Sargent. Only Yesterday. It is a book recounting the times 
some years ago. He begins, I think, around the turn of the century. 
It is a very readable book. He discusses what was going on. 

Mr. Hays. Could I have some member of the staff call the Library 
of Congress right away and ask if I can get a copy tonight ? 

Mr. Sargent. I am not citing it as authority, but a general dis- 
cussion of the time. I think it is pretty accurate. It was general 
atmosphere, was the only purpose of referring to it. 

Mr. Hays. I just want to look at it. 

Mr. Sargent. It is a newsy type of book about discussing the very 
things that were going on and talked of at the time. 

Another poster in this book here about character education in the 
Soviet has a pamphlet with two children, a boy and a girl, a Eussian 
caption, of course, and a translation "Nursery Schools." It says: 

Enter the preschool campaign. Build a new life and organize the children's 
parks and playgrounds. Educate the Communist shift. 

That is the beginning of chapter 3. There is one on the 5-year plan 
here. There is one about liquidating the kulak, a man standing with 
his hand raised: 

Let us eject the kulak from the Kolkhoz. 

It talks about self-activity and what the children can do. No, this 
is not the children but the grownups. 

We cannot consider the question of the development of children's self -activity 
and work with the pioneer activity apart from their connection with the new 
environment in which we find ourselves and work with the children. 

The point of this is that apparently the obsession at this time had 
gone to such a point that it was considered worthwhile for an edu- 
cator to bring that material over here, that propaganda, a man con- 
nected with a leading school of education, and to write a foreword to 
it, and thereby endorse it. The foreword by Counts includes the 
statement that a child can be formed, a youth can be bent, but only 
the grave can straighten the back of an old man. Also, that the char- 
acteristic which distinguishes the Eussian Ee volution from the revolu- 
tion of the past is the attention given to children and youth. They 
realized that if the revolution was to be successful in the long run, if 
their ideas were really to triumph, if a new society was to displace the 
old, then the very character of the people inhabiting the Soviet Union 
would have to be profoundly changed. 


Consequently, as soon as they had made the conquest of political 
power, they turned their attention to the stupendous task of educat- 
ing the coming generation to the theory and practice of communism. 
Their achievements to date are without human precedent in human 

Mr. Hats. In other words, what he said there is that if the revolu- 
tion is to be a success, we have to indoctrinate these kids, because if we 
don't indoctrinate them, they might overthrow us some day. 

Mr. Sargent. That is right. To have a successful revolution, you 
must indoctrinate the children against the formerly existing order. 
That was his philosophy. 

Mr. Hays. Bo you agree that in order to have a successful revolu- 
tion you would have to do that ? Understand, I am not asking you to 
endorse a revolution, but I think that 

Mr. Sargent. I think he has hit it on the head. Of course, that 
is one way you run a revolution. 

Mr. Hays. You and I agree about that. 

Mr. Sargent. On a revolution you do, yes. 

Mr. Hays. But now what I am trying to find out, and I am very 
serious about it, was he advocating that we have some kind of revolu- 
tion and do the same thing here, or was he pointing out that this is 
the way the Communists are going to do it if they are successful. I 
do not know this man at all. Maybe he is terrible. But it seems to 
me from just that one statement he might have been holding up a red 
flag. On the other hand — I am asking you — was he advocating some- 
thing or was he warning ? 

The Chairman. Would you mind reading again one of the last 
sentences there from the foreword about the accomplishment is un- 
paralleled ? 

Mr. Hays. Read the whole thing. 

Mr. Sargent. It was in the foreword ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hays. The last two paragraphs you read. 

Mr. Sargent. The exact sentence is: 

They realized fully that if the revolution was to be successful in the long run, 
if their ideas were really to triumph, if a new society was to displace the old, 
then the very character of the people inhabiting the Soviet Union would have 
to be profoundly changed. Consequently, as soon as they had made the con- 
quest of political power, they turned their attention to the stupendous task of 
educating the coming generation in the theory and practice of communism. 
Their achievements to date are without precedent in human history. 

Mr. Hays. In other words, they did succeed in indoctrinating these 
children and knew no better than communism. 

Mr. Sargent. I think there is no question about it. I think that is 
the system that was established. That is the system which by this 
announcement American educators were going to look at in 1935, the 
next year. 

Mr. Hays. I don't think that would be too bad an idea because if 
we are going to combat this communism, we are going to have to do 
it with ideas and if we are going to be able to educate our people that 
it is bad, I always thought in order to have a successful fight against 
an opponent, you had to know something about him. I never stay 
away from political meetings of the opposite party unless they bar 
me, and in that case I try to send somebody else who can report on 
it. I want to know what they are doing. 


Mr. Sargent. Understanding what they are doing is an excellent 
idea, and I go all for it. But subjecting a teaching staff to a slanted 
course on one side, and bringing them home, is no counterbalance 
against something else. It automatically produces a slant in the mind. 

Mr. Hats. Let me say this to you, Mr. Sargent. Along with sev- 
eral other Members of Congress of both political parties, I spent some 
weeks behind the Iron Curtain and the most effective job I have been 
able to do in my life — and I can cite you some people who can testify 
to that, I think — in telling them about what a horrible thing it is, 
about how it degrades the human, about how there is no freedom of 
thought, no liberty of any kind, no human decency, has been because 
I was there and saw it. I was in Prague the night they had the big 
purge, and they arrested 5,000 people between sundown and sunup, 
and I will never forget it as long as I live. I think by knowing that 
I can more effectively tell people when I have the opportunity and 
occasion about what a horrible thing communism really is. 

Are you saying that no one should find that out? I was there and 
they certainly probably as much as they could subjected us to what- 
ever propaganda they were able to, but it didn't twist my brain any. 

Mr. Sargent. If you were there, you saw something which these 
people in charge of our educational system with foundation grants 
didn't get — the people that joined all these fronts and did all these 
other things. The people who don't know and will not listen and not 
pay attention to the results of an investigation. That is one of the 
cruxes of our problem. Here, for instance 

Mr. Hays. Now, just a minute. 

Mr. Sargent. People who have been there have an entirely dif- 
ferent slant from people who have not been there who have read cer- 
tain literature which they think is all right, and that is all. That is 
one of our serious problems here. I know what you mean. I have 
talked to people who have been there recently. I talked to Lt. Paul 
O'Dowd, Jr., who has received a very distinguished decoration by 
the United States Government for his resistance to indoctrination in 
one of these indoctrination camps in Korea, and it is his opinion 
that there are very serious indoctrination policies in education as 
presently conducted, and the matter deserves very serious study from 
that standpoint. 

Mr. Hats. Of course, Mr. Sargent, we will all admit that you can 
indoctrinate people to about anything through education. I hate 
to dwell on this. I have been one who has never made a very big issue 
since I have been in Congress either at home or on the floor because 
it so happens that my mother was from the South and my father from 
the North, but it seems to me the children in the South have been in- 
doctrinated one way about the racial problem whereas in the North, 
they have been indoctrinated another. You say it and I admit it 
that you certainly can indoctrinate children by education. There is 
no question about it. 

Mr. Sargent. Therefore, we must maintain the integrity of this 
system at all hazards, or at least as best we can. The advice of this 
thing is that there has been such a heavy slanting on the one side, and 
almost a total—here is an illustration what I mean by the extent to 
which a certain element in education has gone completely over- 
board. This is an article in the May 1946 issue of an educational maga- 
zine, an article on communications. It is the Progressive Education 


magazine, page 266. The author is Norman Woelfel. He says, "It 
might be necessary paradoxically for us to control our press as the 
Russian press is controlled and as the Nazi press is controlled." 

He said that in a discussion of how we could accomplish more social 
good through the media of communication. 

Now, something is wrong with educational judgment when things 
like that are seriously said. 

Mr. Hays. Of course we are all against that. On the other hand, 
it seems to me that you have given quite a serious consideration that 
you want to control textbooks to your way of thinking. 

Mr. Sargeaintt. Nothing of the kind. I say these books are propa- 
ganda, and Congress prohibited foundation money for propaganda 

The Chairman. That quotation which you just read is from a 
magazine sponsored by an organization supported, or at least in part 
by foundation funds? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, it is the Progressive Education Association. 

The Chairman. Have you read Norman Woelf el's book % 

Mr. Sargent. Molders of the Mind. 

The Chairman. Yes; I have. Gentlemen, the literature on this 
thing is voluminous. I could take all of this week and next week 
giving you these things. I am simply giving what I think are 
representative samples. 

Mr. Hats. Literature, of course, is voluminous on both sides of 
this. I think we are agreed on that. You are from California. Did 
you ever head of a foundation called the American Progress 
Foundation ? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't recall that I have ; no. 

Mr. Hays. It says here it is in California — and they are bragging 
about it — nonprofit corporation, federally tax-exempt, and they give 
their address. Then they have sent a letter out. 

Mr. Sargent. Can you give the address? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. Suite 101-B, Highland Arcade, 1540 North High- 
land Avenue, Los Angeles 28, Calif. ' They have sent out a letter, and 
it is all right to me, and apparently to everybody in Congress, and 
they say that we are pushing, or we are backing the House Joint 
Resolution No. 123, copy enclosed, by Representative Ralph W. 
Gwinn. Congressman Gwinn had a perfect right to introduce this 
resolution. It is proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States relative to prohibiting the United States Government 
from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. This 
copy of it says, "Printed for" — this is a copy of the bill. 

Mr. Sargent. What is the bill about? 

Mr. Hays. I just read the title to it. You know as much about it 
as I do from that. 

Printed for — 

I will read it again if you didn't get it. I don't want to cut you 

Printed for and at the expense of the American Progress Foundation, Los 
Angeles, Calif. — 

and they go on to say a nonprofit California corporation federally 
tax exempt. That is propaganda, isn't it ? 

Mr. Sargent. I would certainly say it was ; yes. It is influencing 


Mr. Hays. That is a pretty specific example of it. 

Mr. Sargent. It is influencing legislation, certainly. 

Mr. Hats. I must refer that to the staff. 

Mr. Sargent. Unless they have some specific interest. I think, 
Mr. Hays, a foundation which happens to have a specific interest in 
specific legislation may properly present and defend that interest. 
For example, you had all the foundations in the business coming in 
voluntarily before the Cox committee and testifying, and they had a 
stake in the controversy. If they didn't have a right to come in on 
that matter, they would be deprived of their exemption rights by now, 
for having been there. 

Mr. Hats. You may have a point. I don't say this foundation 
shouldn't do that. I don't know. This was just handed to me by 
another Member on the floor today, and he said "here is one for your 
committee." I am just asking you. As far as I am concerned, let 
them push that bill. If it is a good bill, and if they can convince 
enough people that is the way we do it under the Constitution, it is 
not easy. 

Mr. Sargent. As a legal matter the distinction is that something 
directly within the corporate purpose of an organization they may 
do. There is some organization promoting forestry and conservation 
and they lobby continuously on that. On general matters, of course, 
that is another thing. 

Mr. Koch. Under the statute it says if a substantial part of their 
income is used, and we have to worry during these hearings just 
whether we can make a better definition than substantial. If nor- 
mally they do perfectly innocuous things and then get off the 
beam once, we have a question as to is this right or is it wrong. That 
is where the statute has to be interpreted. 

Mr. Hats. That is an interesting thing to bring up because we have 
had a lot of arguments about Rockefeller and this $100,000 a year he 
has made available, and the inference has been that it has not been 
good. Maybe it has not. I don't know. On the other hand, he gave 
a lot of money to a place down here in Virginia called Colonial Wil- 
liamsburg, and I expect spent more than he did on this project which 
I have been to numerous times, and I think is very good. 

Mr. Koch. They say that is not foundation. 

Mr. Hats. No ; he did that. I can't get Mr. Sargent to say, perhaps 
he doesn't know, whether this $100,000 a year he keeps talking about 
was from Rockefeller himself or the foundation. It is all vague. 

Mr. Koch. Miss Casey says it was foundation money. 

The Chairman. Have you reached a stopping place ? 

Mr. Sargent. I think I have, yes. 

The Chairman. The hour of 4 o'clock has arrived, and the com- 
mittee stands in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

(Thereupon, at 4 p. m., a recess was taken until Wednesday, May 26, 
1954, at 10 a. m.) 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 36, 1954 

House of Representatives, 
Special Committee To Investigate 

Tax-Exempt Foundations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The special committee met at 10 : 15 a. m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 304, House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman of 
the special committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Reece (presiding), Goodwin, Hays, and 

Also present : Rene A. Wormser, general counsel ; Arnold T. Koch, 
associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, 
legal analyst. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

You may proceed, Mr. Sargent. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, I was asking Mr. Sargent informally be- 
fore the hearing started if he can find in his notes — I have not been 
able to find it, I just got this transcript handed to me as I was coming 
over here — I am interested in this book, Only Yesterday, which he 
mentioned. I would like to find out exactly what he said about it, 
if we could at this point. 


Mr. Sargent. I can't do that without having the transcript or 
getting my notes out of the hotel room. I am coming back in any event 
for cross-examination after this hearing is completed. I will supply 
you with the exact reference. 

I might say at this time my only interest in mentioning the book at 
all was that it was talking about what people on the street currently 
were talking about at the time. 

Mr. Hats. Would you hand me the book, sir? 

Mr. Sargent. Yes. It is a newsy book about the state of public dis- 
cussion at the time, and what the people were doing and acting. That 
is all ; local color. It is not an authoritative work in the sense of prov- 
ing revolution. It said that people were trying out all sort of things. 
That is said in that book. 

Mr. Hats. I think you cited this book to support your contention 
that there was imminent danger of revolution around that period. 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir, I did not. I said it was being talked about 
at the time. 



Mr. Hats. You didn't say that the country was in imminent danger, 
that there was a serious danger in 1917 and 1918? 

Mr. Sargent. I said there was on the basis of the findings of the 
report of the Lusk committee. 

The Chairman. Will you permit an interruption ? As I recall the 
statement, the Lust committee reported there was a revolution. 

Mr. Sargent. Yes, they made very extensive findings. They found 
there was at that time a serious danger for our form of government. 
I did not in any sense use the Allen book as an authority. I don't 
think Mr. Allen is an authority on the subject. 

Mr. Hats. You see, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am trying 
to prove. The witness brings in a book and the committee is at a 
complete disadvantage, because we don't know beforehand what book 
he is going to cite, and we don't get the transcript until the next day. 
I think the transcript will show he is saying two entirely different 
things about it. He brought the book in. He cited the book. I have 
never heard of the book. I have had a half hour to glance at this 
book, and I want to read a few paragraphs cut of it. I will read 
from page 76 : 

The big red scare was slowly, very slowly dying. What killed it? The reali- 
zation for one thing that there had never been any sufficient cause for such a 
panic as had convulsed the country. 

I don't know whether this is an authoritative work or not, but the 
witness cited it so I thought I would look at it. 
Then on page 52, he talks about the Boston police riots : 

The Boston police had a grievance. Their pay was based on a minimum of 
$1,100, out of which uniforms had to be bought, and $1,100 would buy mighty 
little at 1919 prices. 

Then on page 56, in talking about the then Attorney General, he 

Mr. Palmer decided to give the American public more of the same and there- 
upon he carried through a new series of raids which set a new record in Ameri- 
can history for executive transgression on individual constitutional rights. 

Then he goes on and is talking about the fanaticism and fervor, 
and he says on page 58 ; 

Nor did it quickly subside for the professional superpatriots and assorted spe- 
cial propagandists disguised as superpatriots had only begun to fight. Innumer- 
able patriotic societies had sprung up, each with its executive secretary, and 
executive secretaries must live, and therefore, must conjure up new and ever- 
greater menaces. 

You know that has a faintly familiar ring, doesn't it? 

Innumerable other gentlemen now discovered that they could defeat whatever 
they wanted to defeat by tarring it conspicuously with the Bolshevist brush. 
Big Navy men, believers in compulsory military service, drys, anticigarette cam- 
paigners, antievolution fundamentalists, defenders of the moral order, book 
censors, Jew-haters, Negro-haters, landlords, manufacturers, utility executives, 
upholders of every sort of cause, good, bad and indifferent, all wrapped them- 
selves in Old Glory, and the mantle of the Founding Fathers and allied them- 
selves with Lenin. 

Of course, he goes on to point out that they tried to ally their 
opponents, as is being done today, with something nasty and dirty. 
He goes on and I am quoting : 

For years a pestilence of speakers and writers continued to afflict the country 
with tales of sinister and subversive agitators. 


He speaks further : 

Elderly ladies in gilt chairs in ornate drawing rooms heard from executive 
secretaries that the agents of the Government had unearthed new radical con- 
spiracies too fiendish to he divulged before the proper time. A cloud of suspicion 
hung in the air and intolerance became an American virtue. 

This is the author that you brought in. . 

Mr. Sargent. I brought in a specific statement at a specific time. 

Mr. Hays. I am bringing in some specific statements so we will get 
a well-rounded picture. 

The Chairman. May I be permitted to 

Mr. Hats. Just a minute. I want to get the whole picture of this 
man. He made all sorts of statements, and I am not subscribing 

to any. . 

Mr. Sargent. I only said that the discussion at the time publicly 
was about this condition. My authority cited was the Lusk Report 
of the New York Legislature. That book was not cited as an author- 
ity. I do not consider it to be authoritative on whether this con- 
spiracy in fact existed. Mr. Allen did not know. 

Mr. Hays. The point I am making, and I think you made it for me, 
Mr. Sargent, is that you can bring in any book, and you can do it 
with great regularity, and you can pick out a sentence or paragraph 
out of it and make it prove whatever you want it to prove. After I 
read a few paragraphs out of the book, you want to disavow any rela- 
tionship to it. 

Mr. Sargent. No. 

Mr. Hays. It is something that you are not going to vouch for at 
all now after we have looked it over. 

Mr. Sargent. No; I vouch for the part of that book which states 
that the intellectuals were doing all sorts of wild things and discussing 
it publicly, and that was the air surrounding the period. That is all 
I wanted to say. 

Mr. Hays. You are going to vouch for part of the book and leave 
the rest out? 

Mr. Sargent. No. I don't have to buy the whole book because he 
tells the truth on one thing. You think it is a pretty good book ? 

Mr. Hays. No ■; I don't. I think you brought out an authority that 
may have been a little wild in some of the statements he makes. To 
further prove that, let me read his subtitles for paragraph 6 : 

Fair and Warmer Washington. The Helpfulness of Warren G. Harding, Wash- 
ington Conference. Harding's Death. The Truth Begins To Come Out. Teapot 
Dome and Elk Hill. Who Loaned Fall the Money? Six or Eight Cows. The 
Silence of Colonel Stewart and Others. The Testimony of Mr. Hays — ■ 

and will the record please show that is Will Hays — 

The Reticence of Mr. Mellon. The Veterans' Bureau Scandals. Dougherty. 
Who Cares? The Undedicated Tomorrow. 

That is the kind of book it is. 

The Chairman. If Mr. Hays would be condescending enough to 
permit one interjection, I would like to say that I would not like to 
associate myself with what has been read, and I would sum it all up 
as meaning that anybody who is against Fabian socialism, and all it 
implies, is classified as a superpatriot with white cloth around him. 

Mr. Hays. You know something ? You didn't disassociate yourself 
with this book yesterday when he was reading paragraphs out of it 


that seemed to prove what you wanted him to prove. Furthermore, 
Mr. Chairman, Fabian socialism is not mentioned in this book as far 
as I can find out. 

The Chairman - . No ; I was disassociating myself with the interpre- 
tation of what you put on what you read. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Reece, I put no interpretation whatever. I merely 
read some paragraphs out of the book because I wanted to acquaint 
you with the kind of books that your witness is bringing in here and 
citing. I am just trying to wake you up. 

Mr. Goodwin. You had one paragraph there on the Boston police 
strike. Can you find that readily ? I am not quite sure I caught it 

Mr. Hays. I just have some pages marked here. I can find it very 
quickly. Page 52. I might say I only read, as I said at the beginning, 
the first sentence out of that. He goes on. I might in justice to this 
fellow say that the Boston police strike fizzled out, and it was bad for 
the public welfare and so on. The man says a lot of things. I am 
only trying to prove, Mr. Goodwin, that you can't take a Dook and 
read a sentence or two out of it and say it proves much of anything. 

Mr. Goodwin. Of course, the police strike did not fizzle out. It 
was ended by the Governor of Massachusetts when he sent a telegram 
to the country to the effect that there was no right to strike against 
the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time, and made Gov. 
Calvin Coolidge President of the United States probably. 

Mr. Hays. No doubt about it. I remember only two statements 
that he made. That one and the one, "I do not choose to run." That 
was about his total contribution to history. 

The Chairman. We will not try to enter into the evaluation of the 
services of Calvin Coolidge. I think the services of that great Ameri- 
can speak for themselves. 

Mr. Hays. I have just one other question, and then you can pro- 
ceed, Mr. Sargent. 

Do you know Bob Humphrey of the Republican National Com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Sargent. No. H-u-m-p-h-r-e-y ? 

Mr. Hays. Yes. 

Mr. Sargent. No; I don't recall the name. 

Mr. Hays. He has not helped you at all ? 

Mr. Sargent. Not a particle. In fact, no person connected with 
any political organization or group has done so as far as I recall. 

Mr. Hays. I do have one more thing, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
state at this time that I talked personally last night to Mr. Edward 
R. Murrow, and he categorically denies that he has ever in his life 
been in Russia, regardless of anything you may say to the contrary. 

Mr. Sargent. I didn't say he was. • I said he signed the prospectus. 

Mr. Hays. You told us yesterday that you heard from good au- 
thority that the school was held and these people attended. 

Mr. Sargent. I didn't say all these people attended. I said I be- 
lieved the school was held. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Murrow is sending down a statement; it should be 
here today, and when it comes, I expect to read it into the record. 

Mr. Sargent. I think, Mr. Chairman, in justice to me and the Amer- 
ican people, unsworn statements and information regarding telephone 


calls should be considered as having no evidentiary value whatever 
before this committee. 

Mr. Hats. Mr. Sargent, don't ally yourself with the American 
people. In the first place, you are not running this committee, and 
what you think has nothing to do with it. 

In the second place, I am of the opinion after your testimony is 
made, most of the American people will not ally themselves with you. 
I don't want any more inferences or insinuations out of you. You act 
like you are running this thing here, and you are not. 

Mr. Sargent. No ; I am trying to present a case. 

The Chairman. That is a question that will be determined when 
matters or information are presented as to what the form of presenta- 
tion shall be. I think it would be best not to get into it now. 

Mr. Hats. I think so, too, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be 
well to have an understanding that the witnesses are not to give any 
advice on how to conduct the hearings. Just because it is happening 
around the Capitol and other places, we don't have to take it as a 

The Chairman. The witness will proceed in order, and the chair- 
man hopes that the members of the committee will do likewise. 

Mr. Sargent. When there was first discussion about the rule for 
my making a presentation in full and having questioning afterward, 
I volunteered and offered to appear before you for the purpose of 
answering questions fully. I want to renew at this time my expres- 
sion of my willingness to do so, and say I expect to do that. At such 
time and place as you may designate after my testimony is completed, 
I will so appear and I will do it voluntarily. 

Inasmuch as this question has been arised about this Frederic Lewis 
Allen book, I think something of considerable importance has emerged 
from it, and I think this is what it is. 

There is an important difference between what people are currently 
thinking or talking or writing about at a given period, as to actual 
conditions, and what exists at the time. I want to give you what I 
think is a graphic illustration of exactly that. 

I doubt if you can search the literature of the period 1933-36 and 
find very much support for the idea that a revolutionary movement 
Wa,s going on. There was an investigation by a select committee of 
this House at the time. The facts on that are contained in the inquiry 
regarding the charges of the late Dr. William Wirt, of Gary, Ind. Mr. 
Wirt made some very serious charges. I have a copy of them before 
me. He asserted 

Mr. Hats. Now, then, Mr. Chairman, the witness just got through 
objecting about me making a statement or reading anything from 
Mr. Murrow. Now he is reading an unsworn statement from some 
character that I never heard of before. 

Mr. Sargent. This is an official record of the House of Representa- 
tives, sir, on the case of William A. Wirt. 

Mr. Hats. Just because it is in the official records of the House of 
Representatives doesn't necessarily make it so, and was it sworn to. 
That is your point, not mine. 

Mr. Sargent. It was introduced on the testimony of Dr. William A. 
Wirt, and it is a document upon which the House of Representatives 
appointed a committee to go into the charges. I have read that record. 

Mr. Hats. What pertinency does it have to this % 


Mr. Sargent. Because it shows a revolutionary condition seriously 
charged at the time and active attempts being made to suppress the in- 
vestigation, a minority report filed stating that it had been suppressed, 
and those charges were not inquired into. 

Mr. Hays. Does it have anything to do with the foundation? 

Mr. Sargent. It has a great deal to do with the conspiracy situation 
I referred to, and I think it should be in the record this morning. 

Mr. Hays. The New York Times said something to the effect that 
you made a lot of talk about the 1920's and 1930's, and you had not 
related it to anything pertinent to this investigation — I believe those 
were the words — or you had not related it to the foundations. That 
is what I think. 

Mr. Sargent. I am intending to do that, Mr. Hays. Your staff 
here has other information. It is not expected of me to prove the 
entire case. I am proving certain phases of the case which are within 
my knowledge. 

Mr. Hays. Let us use the words "you are attempting to prove." 

Mr. Sargent. Very well. This report contained some very serious 
charges having a vital bearing on the safety of the American people. 
It included the statement here — this is a conversation in the presence 
of Dr. William A. Wirt, an eminent educator of his time — he states 
in this document here that he was advised that lie was underestimating 
the power of propaganda which since the First World War had 
developed into a science, that they could m'aKS ffie newspapers and 
magazines beg for mercy by taking away advertising, by laws to 
compel only the unvarnished truth in advertising; that schools and 
colleges could be kept in line by the hope of Federal afd im^ll'the nl$ay 
New Dealers in the schools and colleges had control ,oi them. 
1 The document in question is a part of the official records' of this 
House in the inquiry into the charges of Dr. William A. Wirt. Of 
the committee appointed there, the minority was unable to get any 
subpena power to bring in the people referred to by Dr. Wirt. They 
protested and filed a minority report which is also a document of 
record in this House. Those members said they could not join in the 
report, and that the committee had not met its responsibility. That 
the resolution was a coverup, a cowardly effort to smother the issues 
presented by the Dr. Wirt letter, that the letter does not present a 
personal matter, but a broad issue of whether or not there are those 
connected with the administration who are committed to philosophies 
of government contrary to the Republic under the Constitution. 

The minority protested that they were denied the right to call a 
single witness designed by them. They appealed for subpena power 
to Arthur Morgan ; H. A. Morgan ; David Lilienthal, Director of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority; Harold Ickes, Public Administrator; 
and Harry Hopkins, Federal Emergency Relief Administrator. I 
have read all of the names referred to in that paragraph. By their 
votes the three members refused to permit these five public officials 
to be brought before the committee. 

The minority members informed the majority members that if 
they were permitted to bring the witnesses before the committee, they 
would show the following, and they list a series of charges here which 
are long, and which I won't read. One was that the Tennessee Valley 
Directors had organized a subsidiary corporation with the stock in 
those corporations to be owned by the United States Government, and 


corporations chartered by it to engage in the business of processing, 
and so on. 

Mr. Hays. What does that have to do with foundations, even assum- 
ing that it were true, and as I recall it now, I heard of this fellow, 
and he was more or less discredited by many witnesses who testified 
directly opposite. 

Mr. Sargent. One thing is that it w T ould have exposed the Ware 
Communist cell in the United States Government which was formed in 
the Agriculture Department in 1933 in May. Alger Hiss was in that 
cell. Alger Hiss later became the president of the Carnegie Endow- 
ment for Peace. 

Mr. Hays. Put in by the present Secretary of State, Foster Dulles. 

Mr. Sargent. And defended in a Federal court in the United States 
in the city of New York in a trial handled on those charges of espion- 
age — rather perjury. 

Mr. Hays. Mr. Sargent, Alger Hiss is in jail. We know that. 
That is where he belongs. The evidence pointed out that and the 
Democrats put him there. You have made a lot of inferences which 
you admitted yourself against the so-called New Deal Party. The 
New Deal Party, as you call it, put Alger Hiss in the penitentiary. 
You are basking in the limelight reflected from a convict. 

Mr. Sargent. No ; I am not basking in any limelight. I will give 
you later the story of the character witnesses of Alger Hiss. 

Mr. Hays. We don't want the story because there is no pertinency 
to this. 

Mr. Sargent. I think there is. I am citing this mainly for the 
purpose of proving that there is a vast difference between what is being 
currently gossiped and talked about and what actually exists cur- 
rently. There was a very active revolutionary cell in the United 
States Government in the 1930's. The Wirt charges were true, and 
they were suppressed. These educational conditions we mentioned 
occurred at the very